Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BAIRD TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Campbell: presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Baird Trust; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

PETITION

Retirement Pensions

Mrs. Castle: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of the old-age pensioners of this country. The Petition contains the names of over 650,000 men and women who are deeply concerned at the plight of the pensioners.
The Petition sheweth that those sections of the community who are in receipt of a basic retirement pension are suffering great hardship on account of the increase in the cost of living, and demands an immediate increase in the pension to £7·50 for a single person and £12·50 for a married couple, and asks that the retirement pension be tied to a cost-of-living index and thereafter be reviewed annually.
In view of the erosion of the value of the recent increase in the pension even before it came into operation, and in view of the further erosion which will undoubtedly take place as a result of this Government's determination to take the country into the European Economic Community, the position of our pen-

sioners has become desperate. The Petition therefore concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that legislation should be passed forthwith for the relief of pensioners and those who may hereafter become entitled to retirement pension by raising the basic rate to the extent necessary to meet the essential amenities of life.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Heart Operations (Facilities)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that certain patients requiring a heart operation must travel to London because of lack of facilities in Scotland, if he will take action to remedy this situation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): In any developing specialty it is inevitable that some very specialised techniques will be available only in a few centres.
In general, I have no reason to believe that the resources available for cardiac surgery in Scotland are inadequate.
If the hon. Gentleman has any problem cases in mind, perhaps he will send me details.

Mr. Carmichael: Can the Under-Secretary of State assure me that it is only in highly specialised cases that people have to be moved south for operations? Is he aware that in an area where the incidence of cardiac trouble is very high there is a feeling of resentment that we are not able to handle all these cases in our own hospitals in Scotland?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I know that he will keep the matter in perspective. At the moment, some 15 or 20 cases have to go to London, but for very special cardiac surgery which may not be available in Scotland there is to be an upgrading of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary cardiac surgery unit next year, so that the position will improve in due course.

Winter Works Programmes

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the size of the Government's winter works programmes in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): As I announced on 27th October, the additional works to be undertaken and substantially completed by 31st March, 1973, in Scotland will amount to over £60 million. No representations have been made to me about the size of the programme, which was largely determined by the response of local authorities and other bodies to the invitation given them last July to undertake additional work.

Mr. Strang: Will the Secretary of State agree that the recession in the Scottish economy has reached such an intensity that the temporary jobs created by supplementary public works programmes, while welcome, are trivial in the context of the number at present unemployed in Scotland? Will he further agree that what we need is new investment? In particular, what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to see that the nationalised industries, particularly nationalised steel, have a massively increased level of investment in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: A public works programme can be only one component in helping the situation, but it has been pressed by many, and this programme has been endorsed and supported by many. As to the situation in Scotland, the previous Government left us with a raging inflation, with the result that firms have been disposed to draw in their horns rather than to expand, but a favourable climate for industrial, development is now being created and there is every incentive for expansion.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that exactly a year ago the Government went around slashing Government expenditure, including local government expenditure, and that he called it the new impetus? Will the Secretary of State now give details in the OFFICIAL REPORT of all the special projects he has approved, their estimated cost, the number of jobs likely to be provided and for how long? If he wants response from the local authorities, will he not think of introducing

a new 100 per cent. grant procedure in respect of this work?

Mr. Campbell: Our operation last year was not a slashing operation of expenditure: it was an operation directing expenditure to the places where it was really effective. There is on the Order Paper today a Question for Written Answer, to which I shall give a full reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT, concerning the public works programme. I will certainly consider whether that reply covers all the points about which the right hon. Gentleman asks and will give him further information as necessary.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in the Lothians, in the mining and paper industries, there is a danger of losing about 1,200 to 1,300 jobs before the end of this year and that this will affect employment in East Edinburgh. In the light of these figures, which are alarming when one considers the size of the population, does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to tell the House today how he can improve employment prospects in the areas I have mentioned?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the particular colliery problem in the hon. Member's constituency and have discussed that with him. I know he is in touch with the Minister responsible for the coal industry about it. I am also aware of the difficulties of the paper industry, which is going through a difficult time in general at the moment.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to protect Scottish interests in the development of North Sea oil and gas, in particular by ensuring that some part of the financial gain is reaped by the Scottish economy, and that fishing interests are safeguarded against obstruction and pollution.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am in close touch with the Ministers directly responsible to ensure that Scottish interests are fully protected. The Scottish economy will benefit from this development. All practical steps are being taken to safeguard fishing interests.

Mr. Grimond: Has the Secretary of State made a definite claim that Scotland


should benefit directly by acquiring some part of the profits which will be made from the natural resources in the waters of Scotland? Is there any information about the pollution which may be caused in the event of oil being released into the sea or, referring to movement at the bottom of the sea, the pipes taking it ashore being split?

Mr. Campbell: I am doing everything to stimulate activity in Scotland arising from this development. My hon. Friend gave a fairly full report of the present situation in reply to an Adjournment debate last Monday, which is on the record. Regarding any suggestion of Scotland taking the revenues, I will only ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has reflected on the consequences of relating public expenditure in Scotland directly, and perhaps only, to revenue arising within her boundaries or her shores, bearing in mind, for example, that North Sea gas has been piped for some time from off the shores of England.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would my right hon. Friend be a little more specific when he states that fishing interests will be safeguarded in this matter?

Mr. Campbell: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything possible to bring together the oil interests and the fishing interests, so that they may keep each other informed of their activities.

Migration

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish his latest estimates of net migration from Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The latest published estimates covered the year to June, 1970. The estimate for the six months ending December, 1970, shows a net loss of about 12,000.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give some indication of when he expects to publish the figures for June, 1971? Are they not available to his office? There is a suspicion that net migration is rising and that the future Labour Government will have to go through the same procedure of going into office with very high figures and having to halve them again.

Mr. Campbell: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman because, although the figures are not available, the indications are that any changes from the average which was running in 1969 and 1970 are very slight. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make comparisons, I must point out that during the six years from 1965 to 1970, the net migration from Scotland was much greater than during the previous six years of Conservative Government, and that the highest year was 1966, with 47,000, and the next highest year was 1967, with 45,000.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he inherited a falling curve while we inherited a rising curve? Can he assure us that the curve will continue to fall? When will he publish the precise figures up to June, 1971?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman seems more interested in curves than in the totals. The curve appears to have levelled out, and that is the position I have described.

Barassie Railway Works

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to visit the railway workshops at Barassie, Troon; and if he will pay an official visit to Troon.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend received a deputation of shop stewards when he was in the neighbourhood of Barassie on 15th October. He is fully aware of the social factors involved. The future of the workshops is at present being considered by British Rail and the trade unions concerned through a joint working party.

Mr. Lambie: No wonder the Secretary of State is afraid to visit the former Tory stronghold of Troon. Does not he realise that on Thursday, 18th November, British Rail are to give notice of the closure of Barassie railway workshops, throwing 480 people out of a job with no prospects of getting another? As our only representative in the Cabinet, what will the Secretary of State do about it?

Mr. Younger: With respect, it is very irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman to


anticipate the conclusions of a joint working party which includes both the employers and trade unions. It would be much better to await their conclusions before making extreme statements like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had an Adjournment debate about this last night.

School Milk

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities and other organisations have written to him about the cessation of supplying free milk to the over-sevens.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Eighteen local authorities and 14 other organisations have made representations about the withdrawal of free milk from pupils over seven.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Secretary of State now recognise that virtually every organisation in Scotland is opposed to this Act? Will he also recognise that, unlike the case of school meals, the poorer sections of the community cannot pay for the necessary milk for the over-sevens? Will the right hon. Gentleman now reconsider the position and do something for the future citizens of Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I would not agree that everyone is against the Act. I am aware that some in Scotland dislike its provisions. Parliament spent a long time over this Act and I have discussed with local authority representatives how the provisions can be best carried out with the minimum of inconvenience and difficulty.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that among the organisations which have made representations to him is the education committee of Peebles-shire which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as a left-wing organisation? Will he take note that there is widespread and genuine anger at this very mean Measure which he has introduced?

Mr. Campbell: I did not indicate that the objections had come from any particular political quarter and I am aware, as I said in my earlier reply, that there are objections and there is dislike, but it is not universal. I am aware that there

are difficulties and I have discussed these with the local authorities' representatives.

Mr. Galbraith: Have these local authorities which have protested brought any proof to bear that the children of Scotland are suffering from malnutrition in any way?

Mr. Campbell: No. The problem I have discussed with them is how the medical side should be carried out, and I have made it clear to them that the decisions about individual children must be left to the medical profession—I am sure that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) would support that —and that any child can be referred for medical inspection but that it is not necessary that all children over seven should be submitted for medical inspection.

Mr. Buchan: Can the Secretary of State name one single education authority which has welcomed or approved this Measure? Second, would he now confirm that there is nothing in the Act to stop each and every child in Scotland receiving free milk, once he makes quite clear to all medical officers of health what the Secretary of State for Education has confirmed to me, that preventive factors can be taken into consideration? Is not the way now open for each and every child to be given milk?

Mr. Campbell: The large majority of education authorities in Scotland are carrying out the provisions of the Act. Its interpretation is a matter which should be dealt with by the authorities with their own advisers.

Regional Hospital Boards (Engineering and Architectural Consultants)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums of money were paid by each regional hospital board to private engineering consultants and private architectural consultants in connection with hospital development in the years 1965 to 1970, inclusive.

Mr. Monro: During the financial year 1970-71 payments by Scottish regional hospital boards to private engineering consultants, private architectural consultants and private quantity surveyors totalled £1,481,304.The component


amounts for the various regional hospital boards I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Similar information is not readily available for earlier years.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Under-Secretary concede that £1½ million is a considerable sum? Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to establish the common services agency under the reorganisation of the Health Service in such a way as to make it unnecessary to employ outside consultants for work which can be done within the National Health Service?

Mr. Monro: It is entirely up to regional hospital boards or to the bodies set up under the new organisation to make this decision for themselves.
The information is as follows:
Payments during financial year 1970–71 by Scottish regional hospital boards to private engineering consultants, private architectural consultants and private quantity surveyors:


Northern Region
57,445


North-Eastern Region
70,455


Eastern Region
185,579


South-Eastern Region
172,550


Western Region
995,275


Total
1,481,304

Rents

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to limit the amount of increase in rents which may be imposed by rent assessment tribunals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Rent assessment committees must remain free to fix what in their judgment are fair rents. This was provided for in the Rent Act, 1965, introduced by the previous Administration. Under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, published today, tenants who cannot afford to pay the full fair rent will be assisted by rent allowances, and rent increases will be phased in certain circumstances.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the rent officer at Coatbridgc has agreed to a rent increase from £18 to £110 for a two-room-and-kitchen tenement occupied by retirement pensioners? That is an increase of more than 600 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman realise

that landlords are cockahoop because the rents of similar houses were stepped up by £100 by a rent tribunal? Is it not time that rent tribunals were told to enforce fair and not extortionate rents, because the 1969 Act was never intended to be a lawyers' paradise?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I think he will agree that rent assessment committees are essentially the type of body which must be left independent of interference from governments of any kind. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be improper to interfere with the normal working of these committees. If the new Bill is enacted, tenants will be able for the first time to get rent allowances to help them, if the rent is too much for their needs.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my hon. Friend aware that many tenants, particularly elderly ones, are not aware that if they appeal against a rent officer's decision to an assessment tribunal the figure can be substantially increased and not just reduced? As assessment committees have been in the main fixing rents higher than those fixed by rent officers, is there some way in which people can be made aware of the facts and of their rights?

Mr. Younger: I agree that it is important that people should be aware of the facts. Appeals do not always result in increases. For example, in 1970 in 32 per cent. of cases rent assessment committees reduced the rent and in 28 per cent. left the rent unchanged. Therefore, appeals do not always work to the detriment of tenants.

Mr. Ross: Will the Government undertake to review the proceedings of these committees, because there may well be a greatly changed situation when there is a recognition that, no matter what the rent is, somebody else will pay. The landlords will be the ones who will benefit and the public will have to pay these rents, many of which could be extortionate for the type of property involved.

Mr. Younger: I do not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It all depends upon the independence of judgment of the rent assessment committees. I have no reason to think that they are acting improperly in any way.

Local Rates

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average payment made in local rates by householders in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years previously.

Mr. Younger: In 1970-71 the average rate payment by householders, including domestic water rate, is estimated to have been £5320: comparable figures for 1965-66, 1960-61 and 1955-56 were £3810, £28·70 and £21 ·90 respectively.

Mr. Taylor: Do not these figures show the urgent need to consider the whole question of local government reform and finance? Is it the Minister's intention to have a further revaluation before local government reform takes place? If rates in the new larger areas are to be on the basis of the assessments fixed by independent assessors in the present areas, some grotesque anomalies will arise.

Mr. Younger: These are all matters which must be considered in the light of the current review of local authority finance. I share my hon. Friend's regret that this was not undertaken at an earlier stage than it was. It is worth pointing out that the increases which have occurred over the years have more or less kept pace with the increase in average earnings.

A98 (Portsoy-Cullen)

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the realignment of the A98 between Portsoy and Cullen.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is having schemes prepared for the reconstruction of a number of bridges on A98 between Banff and Buckie, including several between Portsoy and Cullen. Some realignment of the road would be entailed by these schemes.

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that when it comes to the railway bridge just east of Cullen at Crannoch Woods there is an area of considerable public amenity and local beauty which should be preserved? In realigning that bridge will he take note that the old bridge

was much more direct than any possible proposal he has in mind?

Mr. Younger: If my hon. Friend is referring to the Seatown Viaduct, I should prefer to see the details of the proposed road works there before answering the question in detail. If the Seatown Viaduct remains, there will be severe limitations on the road improvements which can be carried out on the site.

School Building

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new primary schools have been started in 1971; how many have been completed; and what were the comparable figures for the years 1965 and 1970.

Mr. Monro: In the nine months to 30th September, the latest period for which figures are available, 30 new primary schools were started and 23 completed.
The figures for the corresponding periods in 1965 were: started 39, completed 42; and in 1970: started 24, completed 28.

Mr. Hamilton: How do the figures for December, 1970 to May, 1971 compare with the figures for December, 1966 to May, 1971? In the latter period 39 new primary schools were started. The present Government have said that they are giving extra priority to the provision of primary education. Can we not therefore assume that the current figure will be much greater than that I have quoted for the 1967 period?

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman wanted those figures he should have asked for them. The hon. Gentleman should realise the extent of the acceleration which has taken place in the programme since the Labour Government left office. We estimate that in the present financial year there will be 62 new starts—a very considerable improvement on the programme of 24 that we inherited.

School Milk

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has sent to individual representatives of local authorities arising out of decisions of these authorities to provide school milk for children over seven years of age; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Forty-one such letters have been sent on my behalf in pursuance of the procedure laid down by Statute. I have no statement to make on this today.

Mr. Eadie: As the right hon. Gentleman must know that in recent times the House has been obsessed with hon. Members who have been faced with issues of conscience and principles, does he think it right that his Department should send treatening letters to decent, God-fearing councillors of Midlothian and elsewhere because they, as a matter of conscience and of principle, are not prepared to deprive school kiddies over seven of school milk?

Mr. Campbell: The position is governed by Statute. [Interruption.] It is governed by other Statutes. These people were affected by the auditors' reports. Therefore, I was statutorily bound to intimate the reports to them and to consider any statements in writing they cared to make to me within 14 days of those intimations. This is in accordance with Statutes preceding the Education (Milk) Act.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State comment on a statement which was made in my constituency by an official spokesman of the party which now forms the Government but which is the minority party in Scotland? In answer to a question about school milk this spokesman said that only the rich should have children and that if a person could not afford to keep his children he should not have any. Will the Secretary of State accept from me that that statement caused widespread concern in the area in which it was made?

Mr. Campbell: I am not aware of the statement. It sounds as though it may have been concerned more with the population explosion than with this subject.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend any recollection of what views were expressed by the God-fearing councillors of Midlothian and other local authorities when the previous Government removed free milk from the 12-year olds?

Mr. Campbell: I think my hon. Friend will remember that when our party was

on the other side of the House we behaved very much more responsibly.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to take up this question of responsibility. In the letter that the right hon. Gentleman sent to these councils, did he remind them that he was the man who aided, encouraged and abetted the Tory town councils of Glasgow and Edinburgh to flout the will of Parliament in the matter of fee-paying schools?

Mr. Campbell: I am very glad of this opportunity to repudiate entirely 100 per cent. that charge which the hon. Gentleman has already made outside this House. Neither I nor any of my colleagues did anything to encourage any local authority in 1969 and 1970 to flout the law. We did the opposite. We said that we would change that law when we came back into office, and we did so.

Mr. Ross: I would not boast about that.

Heart Disease

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people died from heart disease in Scotland in each of the last three years; how this compares with the other areas of the United Kingdom; and what steps he proposes to take to increase facilities for research and treatement of this disease.

Mr. Monro: The figures are 21,558, 21,878 and 21,497, respectively. These represent higher death rates than in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend expects to continue to support all projects for research into heart disease recommended by the Advisory Committee on Medical Research. I have, however, no reason to think that the overall facilities for treatment in Scotland are inadequate.

Mr. Carmichael: In answer to an earlier Question, the hon. Gentleman said that urgent consideration was being given to the upgrading of the cardiac unit at the Royal Infirmary in Glasgow. Do these figures not suggest that greater urgency is required and that there is a genuine feeling of disquiet in the West of Scotland, which we do not want to exacerbate, that the facilities are not quite as good as they should be?

Mr. Monro: The upgrading of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary is in the programme and will start next year, so that it will be ready the year after. There are adequate facilities in Scotland and, in relation to the original Question, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting all research facilities that are requested.

Freight Charges (Orkney and Shetland)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his policy for the assistance over freight charges to Orkney and Shetland.

Mr. Younger: When my right hon. Friend has completed his review of island shipping services and subsidies. Many of the relevant facts have only recently become available, following the publication on 11th October of Professor Gaskin's Report on freight rates and prices in the Islands.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear to mind that this matter is now extremely urgent for many reasons, but principally because we have an annual increase of 10 per cent. on freights which is far beyond any of the Government's norms, or targets, and it is disastrous for the Islands?

Mr. Younger: I can well understand the concern which is felt about these increases. The right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with me about them. There are many factors which have to be taken into account in a change of policy, but we shall waste no time in coming to decisions as soon as we can.

Regional Employment Premium

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request his Economic Advising Section to investigate the effects on the Scottish economy of the ending of the regional employment premium in 1974.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My economic advisers keep under review the whole range of regional incentives.

Mr. Douglas: Have not the economic advisers to the Secretary of State told him that the thing to do to hold the job position is to double the regional employment premium immediately?

Mr. Campbell: No. At present the ending of the regional employment pre-

mium is three years away. The situation will be considered nearer the time, so that we can see what combination of measures is likely to be most effective to meet that situation rather than the situation today.

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his economic advisers at any time recommended the ending of R.E.P.?

Mr. Campbell: This was a decision taken by the last Government. They decided that R.E.P. should first be for five years and then, when they brought it in, for seven years. We have kept to the same arrangement.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we never find that he is reliable in relation to Tory policy and we certainly do not take his word in connection with Labour policy? It is true that we guaranteed R.E.P. for seven years but we did not say that it would end at that time. Any industrial firm which is making investment plans wants to know very much earlier what the position will be. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the statement made by Sir Eric Yarrow that R.E.P. should immediately be doubled?

Mr. Campbell: I have seen a number of suggestions made by a great many persons, and sometimes they conflict. Of course, I take all these things into account and pass them to the Ministers whose responsibilities these matters are. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have at least made it clear now that this particular form of assistance will not continue beyond the end of the seven-year period. In two years' time, when the situation can be assessed, we can see what is the best combination of regional deployment measures for 1975.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now allow the Chevron Oil Company to go ahead with its £50 million development at Hunterston, so giving immediate employment to 3,000 unemployed constructional workers in North Ayrshire.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My planning decisions on Hunterston have zoned the area for industrial development and a deep waiter port. To stimulate the


economy and bring down unemployment the Government have introduced a number of measures, including the very large programme of immediate public works which I have announced for Scotland.

Mr. Lambie: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when he turned down Chevron's original proposal he said that Britain's future oil supplies would be guaranteed by the B.P. expansion at Grangemouth, further developments at Shellhaven and by Burmah and Total plans for development on the Thames? Has no one told him that B.P. has postponed its development at Grangemouth and that we have heard nothing further of the other two developments? Why is not the right hon. Gentleman honest and why does not he clearly state that he does not want the Chevron Oil Company development at Hunterston at any price?

Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the announcements by B.P. The situation there was one of many factors which were taken into account in these planning decisions. As the hon. Member must know, this was a planning decision similar to the one which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) made—

Mr. Lambie: It was the right hon. Gentleman's decision.

Mr. Campbell: —concerning another company, Murco, about the particular place to which it had applied to go. May I also point out that the figure of 3,000 given in the Question as the number of construction workers who would be employed is very much overstated? The Chevron Company itself said that the number would be 2,000, and they might not all come from North Ayrshire.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would not sneeze at 2,000 jobs, quite apart from 3,000? He must realise that there have been two changes since he made his decision—first of all, the cancellation or postponement of the B.P. development, which was a substantial part of the excuse given for turning this down. The Murco decision was quite different because it was based on pollution, and no pollution factor is involved here. The Secretary of State rather curiously, in a way which we have not been able to elicit, is associated with the Hunterston Development

Company. We should like to know when the feasibility studies are to be completed, and whether his development company is in discussion with Chevron Oil and other interested developers on their possible position in the development of Hunterston.

Mr. Campbell: On the question of employment, this project, if it had gone ahead at that place, would have provided some construction work, but when that was finished the number of jobs would have been very small—not more than 300.
As regards the Hunterston development, I have been associated with this for a long time—at least three years, as the hon. Gentleman knows—and recently the Government joined in establishing the Hunterston Development Company and assisting it with a study; that is the preliminary work which has to be carried out anyway, before industrial development can be carried out at Hunterston. This is going ahead now and, therefore, time is not being lost.

Mr. Galbraith: Will my right hon. Friend hold firm to his view that it would be wrong to let a foreign firm despoil a most important area in Scotland while our own firm is forced to pump its oil inland? Will he stick to that line?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot open up all the considerations which were behind the planning decision, but I would point out that the affirmative planning decisions which I announced last December, at the earliest possible moment, have opened the way to the industrial development which can provide the most jobs in that area and can be most valuable for Scotland. As regards the Firth of Clyde, very large tankers are using the deep water there to pump oil from Finnart to Grangemouth.

Mr. Ross: To what extent is the Secretary of State himself or the Scottish Office financially involved in the feasibility study and the Development Company? The right hon. Gentleman could well prejudice the position, since he has effectively taken unto himself the decision in relation to planning applications.

Mr. Campbell: The Government have offered financial help with the study, in combination with the Hunterston Development Company, but this in no way


diminishes the position of the Secretary of State as a planning Minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with only 16 Questions in about 22 minutes. The House will have to go ahead rather more quickly now. Mr. Robert Hughes, Question No. 17.

Mr. Tom McMillan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have drawn to our attention the number of Questions so far dealt with, but I seem not to be able to catch your eye. Could you give the reason for that?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly no personal reason whatever.

Regional Hospital Boards (Medical Staff)

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the number and grade of medical staff employed on whole-time and part-time contracts in each specialty in each regional hospital board in 1970.

Mr. Monro: Information by speciality is not available for 1970, but I shall circulate details of staff in post at 30th September, 1969, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm the impression that there has

been a move from whole-time contracts to part-time contracts by consultant staff with regional hospital boards? If that be so, is it not a disturbing trend, since it leads to a growth in the number of people who are able to buy privilege by jumping the queue and getting earlier treatment?

Mr. Monro: No, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. When he has the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will find there eight pages of detailed statistics, and I am sure that he will not be able to deduce from them the conclusion which he advanced in his supplementary question.
Following is the information:
NOTES:

(a) WT, PT, and WTE mean whole-time, part-time and whole-time equivalent respectively.
(b) The column headed WTE of PT shows the number of whole-time contracts (11 sessions) equivalent to the total number of sessions worked by part-time staff.
(c) The column headed WTE/PT shows the ratio of the whole-time equivalent of the part-time staff to the number of part-time staff.
(d) The figures exclude medical staff with honorary part-time contracts and general medical practitioners employed in the hospital service on a part-time basis.
(e) Because of roundings there are slight discrepancies between the totals and the sums of the constituent items shown for whole-time equivalent (WTE) figures.

CONSULTANTS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
6
1
0·8
0·8
3
6
5·1
0·9
7
5
4·2
0·8
22
21
16·7
0·8
39
37
30·1
0·8
77
70
56·4
0·8


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
8
2
1·6
0·8
13
2
1·6
0·8


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
23
—
—
—
34
—
—
—


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
6
1
0·7
0·7
19
1
0·8
0·8
32
2
1·6
0·8


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
1
0·8
0·8
2
—
—
—
3
1
0·6
0·6
7
2
1·5
0·8


Dermatology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
2
1
0·8
0·8
1
2
1·7
0·9
1
2
1·3
0·7
4
11
9·2
0·8
9
16
13·0
0·8


General Surgery
…
…
…
4
5
3·6
0·7
9
4
2·9
0·7
6
5
4·2
0·8
15
11
8·8
0·8
36
41
32·2
0·8
70
66
51·2
0·8


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
…
1
2
1·7
0·9
4
4
3·4
0·9
6
1
0·8
0·8
7
6
5·1
0·9
26
13
10·7
0·8
44
26
21·3
0·8


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·8
0·8
—
—
—
—
2
3
2·6
0·9
2
8
6·7
0·8
5
12
10·0
0·8


Paediatrics
…
…
…
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
7
1
0·6
0·6
13
3
2·6
0·9
27
4
3·2
0·8


Pathology
…
…
…
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
28
1
0·8
0·8
44
1
0·8
0·8


Bacteriology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
18
—
—
—
30
—
—
—


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·8
0·8
2
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
2
2
1·7
0·9
5
4
3·4
0·9


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
3
2·5
0·8
3
1
0·8
0·8
5
4
3·4
0·9


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1·6
0·8
—
2
1·6
0·8


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
11
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
—
2
1·6
0·8
2
2
1·7
0·9
2
2
1·6
0·8
3
6
5·1
0·9
12
14
11·5
0·8
19
26
21·3
0·8


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
2
1·6
0·8
4
2
1 ·6
0·8
6
4
3·2
0·8


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
3
1
0·8
0·8
3
2
1·7
0·9
6
4
3·4
0·9


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
4
—
—
—
7
1
0·8
0·8
13
—
—
—
24
1
0·8
0·8
59
2
1·7
0·9
107
4
3·4
0·9


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
18
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
4
1
0·8
0·8
4
1
0·8
0·8
10
3
2·5
0·8


Radiology
…
…
…
3
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
18
3
2·4
0·8
34
8
6·3
0·8
70
11
8·7
0·8


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
1
0·5
0·5
2
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
9
2
1·7
0·9
19
3
2·2
0·7


Ophthalmology
…
…
…
—
2
1·7
0·9
—
5
3·9
0·8
1
3
2·4
0·8
2
5
3·5
0·7
7
21
16·1
0·8
10
36
27·4
0·8


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
1
—
—
—
—
1
0·2
0·2
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
11
—
—
—
14
1
0·2
0·2


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
3
2
1·7
0·9
2
2
1·7
0·9
2
5
4·0
0·8
10
11
8·8
0·8
22
33
27·0
0·8
39
53
42·7
0·8


Biochemistry
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
12
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
4
—
—
—
9
4
3·2
0·8
8
4
3·1
0·8
33
7
5·4
0·8
60
18
14·5
0·8
114
33
26·0
0·8


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·8
0·8
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
1
0·8
0·8


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
36
14
11·4
0·8
65
34
27·4
0·8
82
30
25·0
0·8
206
86
69·7
0·8
475
226
183·4
0·8
864
390
312·2
0·8

SENIOR HOSPITAL MEDICAL OFFICERS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·3
0·3
—
1
0·3
0·3


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
15
1
0·7
0·7
20
1
0·7
0·7


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·3
0·3
4
—
—
—
5
1
0·3
0·3


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·2
0·2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·7
0·7
1
2
1·0
0·5


Dermatology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


General Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·2
0·2
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
1
0·2
0·2


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·6
0·6
—
1
0·6
0·6


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Bacteriology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1·3
0·7
—
2
1·3
0·7


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness.
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
10
—
—
—


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Radiotherapy.
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Opthalmology
…
…
…
—
1
0·2
0·2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
3
5
3·8
0·8
3
7
4·8
0·7


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
8
4
3·1
0·8
10
4
3·1
0·8


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
1
1
0·2
0·2
—
2
0·4
0·2
—
—
—
—
11
3
2·0
0·7
49
15
10·8
0·7
61
21
13·6
0·6

MEDICAL ASSISTANTS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
2
0·5
0·3
—
—
—
—
—
2
1·0
0·5
4
—
—
—
6
4
1·5
0·4


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
3
1
0·5
0·5
—
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
16
1
0·5
0·5


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·6
0·6
2
1
0·5
0·5
19
—
—
—
22
2
1·1
0·6


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·2
0·2
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·2
0·2


Dermatology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


General Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·3
0·3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
5
1
0·3
0·3


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
8
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
2
—
—
—
2
2
1·0
0·5


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Bacteriology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
1
2
1·2
0·6
4
2
1·2
0·6


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·8
0·8
—
1
0·8
0·8


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
1
0·5
0·5
4
2
1·1
0·6


Pediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
4
—
—
—
5
1
0·2
0·2
5
1
0·4
0·4
9
1
0·5
0·5
18
2
1·5
0·8
41
5
2·6
0·5


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
1
0·5
0·5
11
1
0·5
0·5


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1·1
0·6
—
2
1·1
0·6


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
1
0·5
0·5
1
1
0·5
0·5


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
0·5
0·5
2
2
1·0
0·5


Ophthalmology.
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
—
1
0·7
0·7
—
1
0·8
0·8
1
2
1·6
0·8
7
1
0·8
0·8
9
5
4·1
0·8


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
4
1·8
0·5
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
5
—
—
—
6
5
2·3
0·5


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
1
0·7
0·7
2
3
1·1
0·4
1
—
—
—
9
1
0·8
0·8
14
5
2·7
0·5


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
11
—
—
—
15
14
6·2
0·4
15
7
3·6
0·5
25
8
4·7
0·6
99
13
8·8
0·7
165
42
23·4
0·6

SENIOR REGISTRARS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
12
—
—
—
25
—
—
—


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Dermatology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


General Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
13
—
—
—
30
—
—
—


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
14
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
8
—
—
—


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
1
0·6
0·6
6
1
0·6
0·6


Bacteriology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
0·6
0·6
3
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
9
1
0·6
0·6


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
24
—
—
—


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
8
1
0·8
0·8
16
1
0·8
0·8


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Ophthalmology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
9
—
—
—


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
17
—
—
—


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
8
1
0·8
0·8
19
1
0·8
0·8


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
20
—
—
—
36
1
0·6
0·6
70
—
—
—
104
3
2·4
0·8
230
4
3·1
0·8

REGISTARS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
3
—
—
—
16
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
36
—
—
—
57
2
1·3
0·7
120
2
1·3
0·7


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
11
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
11
—
—
—
17
—
—
—


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
13
—
—
—
18
—
—
—


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Dermatology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
11
1
0·5
0·5
16
1
0·5
0·5


General Surgery
…
…
…
6
—
—
—
11
1
0·3
0·3
6
—
—
—
31
—
—
—
60
—
—
—
114
1
0·3
0·3


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
11
—
—
—
34
—
—
—
52
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
5
1
0·5
0·5
10
—
—
—
17
—
—
—
37
1
0·5
0·5


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
22
1
0·5
0·5
28
1
0·5
0·5


Bacteriology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
1
0·5
0·5
3
—
—
—
5
1
0·5
0·5


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
15
—
—
—
27
—
—
—


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
8
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
1
—
—
—
6
2
0·9
0·5
7
1
0·4
0·4
33
—
—
—
42
—
—
—
89
3
1·3
0·4


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
5
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·6
0·6
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
1
0·6
0·6


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
13
—
—
—
25
—
—
—


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
8
—
—
—


Ophthalmology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
12
—
—
—
19
—
—
—


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
14
—
—
—
44
—
—
—
67
—
—
—


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
0·5
0·5
—
1
0·5
0·5


Anaesthetics
—
—
—
—
7
1
0·5
0·5
4
—
—
—
23
—
—
—
40
2
0·9
0·5
74
3
1·5
0·.5


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
18
—
—
—
53
5
2·5
0·5
58
2
0·9
0·5
213
1
0·5
0·5
429
7
3·8
0·5
771
15
7·9
0·5

SENIOR HOUSE OFFICERS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
17
—
—
—
39
—
—
—
64
—
—
—


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
7
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
17
—
—
—


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Dermatology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
6
—
—
—


General Surgery
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
15
—
—
—
37
—
—
—
62
—
—
—


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
…
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
11
—
—
—
17
—
—
—
39
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
17
—
—
—


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
13
—
—
—
19
—
—
—


Bacteriology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
—
—
—


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7
—
—
—


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
18
—
—
—


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
6
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
…
2
—
—
—
5
4
1·8
0·5
6
1
0·5
0·5
9
1
0.5
0.5
15
—
—
—
37
6
2·7
0·5


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
10
—
—
—


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
10
—
—
—


Ophthalmology
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
16
—
—
—


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstetrics
…
…
1
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
37
—
—
—
62
—
—
—


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
1
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
9
—
—
—
22
—
—
—
44
—
—
—


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
10
—
—
—
36
4
1·8
0·5
50
1
0·5
0·5
125
1
0·5
0·5
241
—
—
—
462
6
2·7
0·5

HOUSE OFFICERS

North
North-East
East
South-East
West
Scotland


Specialty



TW
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT
WT
PT
WTE of PT
WTE/PT


General Medicine
…
…
…
10
—
—
—
21
—
—
—
21
—
—
—
68
—
—
—
82
—
—
—
202
—
—
—


Infectious Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
9
—
—
—


Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Cardiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Geriatrics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
6
—
—
—


Venereal Diseases
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Dermatology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


General Surgery
…
…
…
5
—
—
—
6
—
—
—
17
—
—
—
46
—
—
—
83
—
—
—
157
—
—
—


Traumatic and Orthopaedic Surgery
1
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
4
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
17
—
—
—


Urology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Paediatrics
…
…
…
2
—
—
—
7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
10
—
—
—
24
—
—
—


Pathology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Bacteriology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Neurosurgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Neurology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Homeopathy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Thoracic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—


Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery
…
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Paediatric Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3
—
—
—
5
—
—
—
8
—
—
—


Plastic Surgery
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Psychiatry—Mental Illness
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Psychiatric Mental Subnormality
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Child Psychiatry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Radiology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Radiotherapy
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Ophthalmology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Haemotology (Blood Transfusion)
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Virology
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Gynaecology and Obstertrics
…
…
2
—
—
—
8
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
18
—
—
—
46
—
—
—
74
—
—
—


Biochemistry
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Anaesthetics
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—


Physical Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Social Medicine
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


All Specialties
…
…
…
21
—
—
—
56
—
—
—
47
—
—
—
147
—
—
—
238
—
—
—
509
—
—
—

Local Government Finance

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to produce his plans for the reform of local government finance.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Firm proposals will be put forward after the Government have considered the views of all concerned on the Green Paper published in July.

Mr. Hamilton: That Green Paper had a bad Press and bad publicity because of its essential conservatism and its advocacy of no change within what is recognised as a regressive system of local government finance. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will come forward with firm proposals before they proceed with their restructuring of the whole local government service?

Mr. Campbell: I hope that proposals will come forward during 1972, in time therefore, unless the consultations take much longer than I expect, for the Scottish local government reform Bill. The Wheatley Commission set up under the last Government had no remit on finance, and the Green Paper published the results of an internal Government study which had been started by the last Government before we came into office.

Family Maintenance

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to determine the minimum amount which shall be paid to a wife and her family without resort always to a court order.

Mr. Monro: The Scottish Law Commission and the Finer Committee are presently considering aspects of the difficult problem which the hon. Member has in mind. Consideration of possible legislation must await their recommendations.

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that in far too many cases irresponsible husbands who are making reasonably good money give their wives as little as £3 a week to keep themselves and, perhaps, three children, and that under the present legislation the wives have no recourse enabling them to do anything about it? I am

happy, therefore, that the Government intend, after receiving the report, to examine it and, perhaps, introduce legislation.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this difficult problem. As soon as the Commission has reported we shall examine the matter as quickly as possible.

International Organisations (Effect of British Membership)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he estimates British membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Free Trade Area and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade have, respectively, on price levels in Scotland; and by how much he expects these effects to be altered by United Kingdom accession to the Common Market.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am advised that it is not possible to give an estimate of this particular effect of membership of these three organisations in recent years.

Mr. Rankin: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have complicated pricing arrangements, trading arrangements and so on with other countries under these treaties, and that they affect us deeply. Does he not realise that Britain's entry into the Common Market will almost certainly bring us into conflict with many of those existing arrangements and organisations? Does he suggest that the new arrangements will have no deleterious effect on existing arrangements?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that the arrangements are complicated. They certainly are, and I have to tell him and the House that the particular effect about which he has asked is impossible to identify. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman is not asking about the Common Market; he is asking about N.A.T.O., E.F.T.A. and G.A.T.T. Hitherto, apparently, no one has wished to discover this rather abstruse piece of information. On the question of the Common Market, the Government made clear in their White Paper what they expect the effects on prices to be. I shall not take time


to repeat that now. The Question refers to three other organisations.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rankin, Question No. 21.

Mr. Rankin: May I just make a simple remark—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no remark, simple or otherwise.

School-leaving Age

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the date for raising the school-leaving age to 16 years will be announced.

Mr. Monro: I announced during the debate on the Address on Friday, 5th November that the school-leaving age would be raised from 1st September, 1972. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of my right hon. Friend's Department's Circular No. 813 of 8th November on this subject.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is more fully seized of the importance of this Question than his right hon. Friend was of my Question No. 20. Will he assure us now that we shall not go through all the misery, trouble and other misfortunes which attended the raising of the school-leaving age after the war, and that there are preparations now ready to be put into effect so that the boys and girls who will stay on may enjoy their time at school until they are 16?

Mr. Monro: I do not underestimate the difficulties in raising the school- leaving age next year. We have made careful provision for the buildings, the curricula and the supply of teachers, which seems now to be improving rapidly.

Mr. MacArthur: The supply of teachers is improving rapidly, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are still certain areas of Scotland and certain subjects in which there is a severe shortage of secondary teachers, and will he consider taking urgent further steps to cure those shortages?

Mr. Monro: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The effect of the designated schools scheme has been quite impressive. There will be help with removal costs and in other ways.

We hope that the teaching profession will be ready to meet the raising of the school-leaving age next autumn.

Employment

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent initiatives he has taken to establish fuller employment in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Within my own field of responsibility, the additional works programme which I announced in July will involve expenditure to an amount of £60 million in Scotland. In addition, special Government assistance is being made available for projects in West Central Scotland estimated to cost £17 million. Other measures have been taken by the Ministers concerned to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. Sillars: May I call the Secretary of State's attention back to West Central Scotland and Question No. 16, dealing with Hunterston? Is he aware that our suspicions were aroused by his constant avoidance of mention of steel in reference to Hunterston? Does he recall that his rejection of the Chevron project was on the basis that he was reserving the Hunterston peninsula for a new green field steel development? Were our suspicions correct, after all, that as one of the first consequences of entry into the Common Market, we shall not get it?

Mr. Campbell: Entry to the Common Market has nothing to do with it, as far as I can see. My planning decision opened the way to the development of a major steel complex. That was a decision of last December. The question of a major complex of the kind which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind must be part of the British Steel Corporation's long-term plan. It is still considering its investment programme, and the Government have not yet been able to consider it.

Housing Finance

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to assess the effect of Government policy in housing finance on Scottish wage rates.

Mr. Younger: Our policy on housing finance should not affect Scottish wage rates.

Mr. Sillars: Is the Minister aware that he is talking about a different group of trade unionists from those I know? Does not he accept that his Housing Finance Bill will substantially increase the rents of the miners and other workers? Does not he agree that it would be perfectly legitimate for all the workers in Scotland to insist in wage negotiations that they have an additional element to cover the increased cost of rents to protect their standard of living?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman needs to give a little more study to the proposals. He seems to ignore completely the fact that any increases will be limited by the Government in the Bill to an average of 50p in any week, which is not substantially different from the previous Government's approved maximum of 37½p in the week. He also seems to ignore the compulsory rent rebate scheme, which will protect many of the lower-paid workers from any effects of the proposals, and the substantial benefits to ratepayers from the progressive relief of their burdens which the policy will produce.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the Labour Government having doubled rents, does he realise that that was over a period of six years, from a lower base line, while the new proposals more than double rents over three years? The hon. Gentleman is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land if he imagines that there will be no effect on wage rates.

Mr. Younger: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman admit that his Government doubled rents. We would never have approved of doubling rents without introducing compulsory rent rebate schemes and rent allowances for private tenants.

POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Telegraph Poles

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to prevent it seeking planning permission from local authorities to erect telegraph poles in close proximity to

houses of occupants who are not telephone users without consultation with the people affected.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir. A general direction would not be appropriate.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Minister should be aware, in view of the years he has spent in local government service, as I have, that often posts are erected without any consultation with the people concerned. People who do not themselves want a telephone service often find that the telegraph poles are erected next to their windows or doors. Surely it is right that such people should be consulted? What is the purpose of the Post Office and the local authority, either separately or together, denying people the right to make observations on where it is proposed that posts be erected?

Mr. Chataway: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in the subject. It is a matter for the Post Office, and therefore I must advise him that individual cases should be taken up with the Post Office.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that in the view of many of my colleagues, particularly from local authorities, there is one law for one set of people with regard to telegraph poles and another law for another set? We would welcome a direction or some indication from him to the Post Office that the underground cable system should be used in all schemes, whether or not they are local authority housing schemes.

Mr. Chataway: It would not be possible to put all cables underground. But I have no doubt that the Post Office will take note of the hon. Gentleman's views

Second-class Mail

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proportion of second-class mail posted on Thursday arrives on Saturday and Monday, respectively.

Mr. Chataway: I understand from the Post Office that the proportion available for delivery by Saturday is about 84 per cent. although some of this mail is not delivered on that day because many firms


are closed. The remainder is due for delivery on Monday.

Mr. Wall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that percentage is not very good and is likely to get much worse when the new proposals are implemented? Will he bear in mind that while one daily delivery might be acceptable, people expect to get their mail in the morning before they go to work?

Mr. Chataway: There are particular difficulties about Saturday, in that there is only one delivery then, and many firms are closed and the Post Office cannot deliver to them on that day.

Mr. William Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how the much-maligned British postal service compares with that in other countries, particularly America?

Mr. Chataway: International comparisons are fairly difficult, but I think that there is a perfectly fair claim to be made that our postal services are the best in the western world.

Post Office (Capital Investment)

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make it a condition of approval of the capital investment programme of the Post Office that it increases its investment in telecommunications.

Mr. Chataway: I have approved a rising programme.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that many of us on this side will be very pleased to hear that, since the President of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are demanding increased investment to get rid of some of the scourge of unemployment? Will he see that the increased investment is well spent and that the delay in providing equipment, which is now 15 months, is decreased?

Mr. Chataway: The capacity of the telephone service is determined by investment decisions five or six years ahead. Against an investment in telecommunications in 1969-70 of £362 million, the figure in 1970-71 was £419 million, and we shall be over £450 million this year.

Telephones (Domestic Installations)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunica-

tions what estimate he has made of the percentage of homes in Great Britain which have neither a private nor a party-line telephone.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir, but I understand from the Post Office that currently about 40 per cent. of homes in the United Kingdom have telephones.

Mr. Taylor: Do not those figures show that the majority of people in Britain still depend on public telephones? Because of the appalling vandalism, is the Post Office considering as well as it should the resiting of as many of those telephone kiosks as possible in places where they are not so liable to vandalism?

Mr. Chataway: The Post Office has put a great deal of thought and energy into meeting the problem, both as to siting and to developing and installing telephone kiosks that are more vandal-proof.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Are not people in Japan, the United States, Italy and other countries encouraged to put telephone kiosks in garages, cafes and so on? Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest that policy to the Post Office, because it seems to have worked quite successfully in the countries concerned? The supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) on Question No. 29 ties up with this. When he noted that there was a delay of 15 months in supplying equipment, the Minister did not answer that part of his question. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to reduce the delay?

Mr. Chataway: Principally, we are gradually stepping up the investment programme, because the delay now is owing to inadequate investment during the time the previous Government were in office. We are ensuring that the Post Office moves as far as it can within the present capacity to meet demand—connections this year are 10 per cent. above what was estimated—and that we invest sufficient for the future.

Local Broadcasting Committees

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications why he has ceased appointing the chairman


and members of the local broadcasting committees for the British Broadcasting Corporation local radio.

Mr. Chataway: As I announced in my reply of 26th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), I have given the B.B.C. the responsibility for making these appointments. This brought the B.B.C.'s Local Radio Councils into line with all the B.B.C.'s other advisory councils. It also reduced the functions of my Department.—[Vol. 818, c. 158.]

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the Minister aware that that retrograde decision undermines the whole concept of community broadcasting, in that it makes the key appointments part of the B.B.C. bureaucracy, and that the decision has been received with dismay, particularly in those towns where local broadcasting has been so successful? Will he reconsider his decision?

Mr. Chataway: I am not aware that the decision has been greeted with dismay. I believe that the majority of people think that it is absolutely reasonable that such advisory councils, like all the other B.B.C. advisory councils, should not be appointed by the Government. To continue this work and to appoint similar councils for independent radio would involve appointing substantial additional staff in my Ministry, which I did not want.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: What is the difference between the local radio advisory councils of the B.B.C. and those of the I.T.A. which the Minister is proposing? According to the Bill which he is presenting tomorrow, he will have the right to consult local authorities about the membership. This seems to be a desirable step which should apply also to the B.B.C.

Mr. Chataway: In neither case will I be appointing the advisory councils. It would not have made sense for there to be one procedure for the I.T.A. and another for the B.B.C.

Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to intervene and use your good offices to protect minority interests among private Members of this House who seek week after week to reach obscure Ministers who are set low down on the answering list for Questions? Are you aware, Sir, that for weeks past we have been trying to reach the Minister for the Civil Service —the Minister for the bureaucracy—and that today we have again been frustrated by the garrulous and loquacious behaviour of the Scots, who took 45 minutes to deal with 20 Questions, which I could have deal with from the Front Bench in a quarter of that time?
As we now have to put up with written replies from the Minister for the bureaucracy, and from the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications on such important matters as the future of the Post Office Giro, on which there is wide-spread support for my view that it should be abolished, will not you, Mr. Speaker, take appropriate action to see that private Members can question all Ministers in rotation, and that this acute selectivity is not continued to the detriment of silent Members of the House such as myself?

Mr. Speaker: Without accepting any of the hon. Member's epithets, I would say that if he has been trying for several weeks to reach the Minister I doubt whether I have any control because it must have been during the Recess. Nevertheless, part of my trouble during Question Time is that supplementary questions are apt to be as long as the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I have every sympathy with the desire to get through Question Time quickly and for the arrangement of Questions to be in the interests of the House as a whole. I think things would go better if we could have shorter supplementary questions and shorter answers.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. My appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, is not only in connection with the length of supplementary questions from the back benches but also with the length of Ministerial answers, which today were abnormally and unnecessarily long. As back benchers have no control over this, could not you use your influence with


these loquacious Ministers to cut down the length of their answers?

Mr. Speaker: I have referred to the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. The only epithet I am not certain I agree with is "abnormally".

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mrs. Lena Jeger.

Mr. Eric Ogden.

Mr. Michael English.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Mr. Secretary Maudling,: supported by Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Mark Carlisle, and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to provide new methods of dealing with offenders and to make new provision in relation to certain existing methods; to increase the penalties under the Firearms Act 1968; to extend the definition of "public place" in the Public Order Act 1936; to empower the police to take drunken offenders to treatment centres; to enable the Secretary of State to release certain prisoners on licence without the recommendation of the Parole Board; to make various amendments in the law relating to criminal proceedings, the enforcement of fines, the execution of process, probation and after-care committees and property in the possession of the police; to repeal section 38 of the Prison Act 1952 and to confer a power of entry in connection with the acquisition of land for prison; to make new provision as respects the costs of magistrates' courts and as respects justices' clerks and their staffs; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12.]

Orders of the Day — MINERAL EXPLORATION, ETC., BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.35 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
This very short Bill deals with two separate legislative proposals. In July I announced the Government's intention to encourage mineral development in this country by contributing to costs incurred by mining companies engaged in proving our mineral resources. Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to this proposal. Clause 2 is designed to clarify or extend certain exceptions from the abolition of investment grants.
I turn first to the question of mineral exploration. Minerals have always been worked in Britain, and during the Industrial Revolution and for much of the last century we enjoyed a pre-eminent position in world production of non-ferrous metals. A hundred years ago Britain was the largest producer of copper, but later on more easily worked deposits were discovered overseas and our own metal mining industry declined, so that in recent years we have produced less than 1 per cent. of our domestic needs.
The situation is now changing again. Access to deposits of non-ferrous ores is becoming more difficult whilst demand for them continues to rise. At the same time, new extraction and processing techniques make it possible for large low-grade deposits to be economically worked. It is widely believed that such deposits exist in this country. For this reason, and given our other advantages —for example, a readily available market and a well-developed infrastructure—the United Kingdom has once more become a potential area for mineral exploration.
Since I announced our proposal interest has developed in copper in North Wales, fluorspar in the Pennines and tin and other metals in the South-West. In Scotland a number of projects to search for non-ferrous metals are just getting under way.
I am sure that it is in our interests to stimulate this type of mining. At present
[SIR J. EDEN.]
we import annually over £600 million worth of non-ferrous metals and their ores. It is conceivable that within the next decade we could produce annually £100 million worth from our indigenous resources. However strong our balance of payments, we obviously cannot afford to neglect such a possibility. Nor can we always be certain of continued political stability in those areas upon which, since our own mining industry declined, we have relied to meet our needs. If, therefore, we can foster the revival of a healthy and prosperous metalliferous mining industry in this country it is clear that we can achieve significant savings in foreign exchange, establish secure sources of supply and create new wealth.
There is a long tradition of mining in certain outlying areas to which it is relatively difficult to attract manufacturing industry. For those who live in the more remote parts of Wales, Scotland, the Pennines and elsewhere a revival of the industry would bring much-needed employment and prosperity.
On the other hand, we must keep a balance. We do not want to pursue the exploitation of our mineral resources to the point where it impairs some of the finest features of our landscape. I can, therefore, assure the House that the scheme I am introducing will in no way affect the operation of the normal planning controls under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Planning permission is always required before the development of a mine and also for some of the activities involved in exploration. When planning applications are made, full weight is given to the existing use of the land and any potential loss of amenity. Each case is looked at on its merits, and, where permission is granted, planning authorities have power to safeguard the environment against pollution while the work is going on and to take any necessary steps to secure the suitable restoration of the site.
I recently visited the new Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall. That project was planned in close co-operation with the local planning authority, and the mine was constructed to meet the authority's requirements, and it is most impressive to see what has been achieved there. This is a good illustration of the attitude

of the mining companies, which are very anxious to minimise the effects of their activities upon the countryside. They have recently set up a study under Lord Zuckerman to examine ways in which the development of our mineral resources can be reconciled with other requirements of national policy, especially those concerning physical planning.
There is also the question of mineral rights, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) in the debate last week. This is not dealt with in the Bill, but the Government fully recognise the difficulties encountered by mining companies in gaining access to land and minerals.
Much of the existing legislation dates from 1923 and was not designed for present conditions. The subject is complex, and any legislation we put forward must be effective and seen to be fair not only to the developers but also to the owners and occupiers. It follows that the amending legislation will have to be framed with great care, and, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Swansea, West in the debate last week, it cannot yet be claimed that there is a consensus of views in the country. A wide variety of situations would have to be covered, and these complex problems could not be solved by a simple Bill. We are currently considering what form the legislation might take whenever parliamentary time permits.
The mining companies operate internationally and invest their resources where they can do so to the best advantage. In choosing between areas of comparable mineral potential they naturally tend to go where the conditions are most favourable. The industry has special features. For example, many expensive exploration projects fail to find economic deposits. Mining generally requires a large capital investment; a major project may involve a total investment of up to £100 million or more, while attempts to prove what turns out to be only a small mineral deposit may easily cost over £1 million. Even where successful, a major project normally takes 10 years or more from the start of exploration to the beginning of commercial production.
Most metal mining companies exploring here have little or no United Kingdom profits available and, because of the long time lag before capital allowances relating to exploration can be claimed, their value in discounted cash flow terms is much reduced. It was becoming clear that, in face of the problems I have outlined, momentum in their exploration effort was being lost. The Bill is geared to their special needs and provides an additional incentive for exploration mainly in the metal mining sector.
Once the mineral has been proved, however, the decision whether or not to proceed with mining should be taken on the basis of normal commercial judgment. The construction phase is of comparable duration to that for many other major capital projects and will benefit from the investment incentives that we have made available to all such projects. Our proposals are, therefore, aimed only at those exploration and evaluation activities leading to a decision whether or not to embark on the development of a mineral source.
The first Clause of the Bill provides the financial authority for the Secretary of State to make contributions towards expenditure incurred on exploring for and evaluating mineral deposits in Great Britain or on the Continental Shelf. It does not apply to hydrocarbons. It limits the amounts that can be paid out to £25 million, with provision for a further £25 million by order, and restricts the total contribution towards an individual project to 35 per cent. of qualifying expenditure.
The Bill permits the Secretary of State to impose such terms as he thinks fit in making any contribution, and it may be helpful if I explain briefly how it is intended to administer the scheme. This will be done in a selective manner. At this stage the scheme will be confined to non-ferrous metal ores and three other minerals—barium, fluorspar and potash —where there is a good case for encouraging exploration. Within this range, contributions will be given only to approved projects. But if, later on, a case can be made out for bringing other minerals within its scope, this can be considered.
Our aim is to attract exploration effort not only from United Kingdom companies but also from abroad, but over- seas applicants will be asked to form a

United Kingdom-registered company. To qualify for assistance an applicant must show that the project has a sound geological basis and that he has the financial and technical resources to carry out his proposed exploration programme, or the means to employ others to do so, and we shall need to be satisfied as to his commercial standing.
Our contributions will be in the nature of loans. Assistance will be repayable with interest if a project leads to the extraction of minerals in commercial quantities. This will, I hope, lead to the recovery in due course of a useful part of our expenditure under the scheme. Many projects that we support will inevitably fail—that is the nature of exploration—and in that event we shall not require repayment; but even under our proposals the companies still carry the major risk. Moreover, most of the failures will occur during the early stages of exploration when the expenditure is relatively slight. As costs mount the likelihood of a viable mine will normally increase and the chance of recovering our contribution will correspondingly be greater. But even where no economic minerals are found we shall have learned a good deal about the nature of our mineral resources and about their value under modern conditions. On this aspect I agree with the hon. Member for Swan-sea, West.
These proposals have attracted a good deal of interest. We have already examined 35 projects which merit assistance, and a further 19 projects are under consideration. I am confident that, one Parliament has given approval, far-ranging programmes of exploration will cover many parts of the country and that in due course these will lead to the revival of a viable metal mining industry which will make a major contribution to the country's wealth.
To sum up, the proposals in Clause I of the Bill recognises the problems faced in this country by a particular sector of the mining industry and the fact that at this moment in our history the conditions are ripe for a revival in a valuable traditional industry. They will encourage the British and international mining com panies to devote greater attention to the mineral potential of this country. The
[SIR J. EDEN.]
shape of economic benefits such as I have described, benefits which have been enjoyed by many other countries over recent years, especially those which have had the foresight and good sense to encourage the development of the mineral wealth that lies within their borders.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Could the hon. Gentleman say at this stage whether there will be any general undertaking that grants would not normally be provided for proposals within our national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty?

Sir J. Eden: No, Sir; not as a general sort of statement such as the hon. Gentleman is asking me to make. I emphasised this aspect in my reference to the requirement to ensure that normal planning procedures would be operated. It is very much in our interests to know the location and extent of the mineral resources of this country; this is the purpose of exploration. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and, indeed, I have sympathy with it, but it is more directed towards the exploitation of what is then known to be workable reserves. Therefore, once we see where these deposits are and know their nature, the proper balance can be weighed and these other factors can be taken into account and given their full measure of significance.
I turn briefly to Clause 2—

Mr. Peter Emery: Might I pursue the point about planning permissions a little further, since it affects the South-West considerably? There are two matters which I should like to put to my hon. Friend. First, am I right in thinking that the Bill will cover the normal workings of clay, sand and gravel, which are minerals used in the building industry, and, if not, why not?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend use his powers to safeguard the position which arises from the point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop)? Planning authorities must go in for some longer-term thinking to ensure the provision of money for the necessary landscaping two or three years ahead, so that when mineral working takes place landscaping has time to develop in order to hide the resulting scars, so preventing major amenity problems to the areas in-

volved. That is a matter to which my hon. Friend's influence might be directed in a very useful way.

Sir J. Eden: I take note of my hon. Friend's second point, which is extremely valuable. I shall see whether there is any means by which this can be furthered. The restoration of sites after working them is a very important aspect of this whole matter.
As for my hon. Friend's first question, the answer is "No". The Bill does not cover materials such as clay, sand and gravel. It is felt that there is sufficient knowledge of these resources. There is plenty of activity already in developing and exploiting them. We do not need to give further stimulus to encouraging their exploitation.

Miss J. M. Quennell: Can my hon. Friend clarify another point? A few moments ago, in an almost throw-away sentence, he indicated that the Bill did not apply to hydrocarbons or oils. However, I notice that Clause 1(5) says:
In this section 'mineral deposits' includes any natural deposits capable of being lifted or extracted from the earth.
Can my hon. Friend assure me that oils are exempted totally from this Measure?

Sir J. Eden: The point about oils and hydrocarbons is similar to the one that I have just made to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) about sand and gravel. There is a very exciting degree of exploration and exploitation activity in relation to the development of hydrocarbons. However, I thought it right in this Bill to provide for changing situations in the future. If it ever came to the point where it was felt necessary to include other minerals, that could be done by means of this provision. However, this is a matter which can be pursued further in Committee. There are many aspects of it which are not just related to hydrocarbons. It is an interesting point, but I think that it would be more appropriate to discuss it in Committee.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that the Bill in its present terms covers the possibility of using the available money for oil and natural gas, since they are included in the term "mineral


deposits", but that it is not the Government's intention to use their discretionary powers for these purposes? After all, they may not be looking for mineral salts in Knutsford, but the possibility is contained in the Bill.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This is a situation which one cannot foresee accurately, but it is conceivable that it will arise.
Clause 2 is a highly technical matter, and I shall attempt to cover it briefly. It modifies in two minor respects the provisions of Section 1 of the Investment and Building Grants Act, 1971, in so far as they affect hired assets and ships. Since that Act was passed it has become apparent that, for purely technical reasons, the provisions in two respects do not seem fully to reflect the intentions of the House. As hon. Members will recall, the Act in general precludes the payment of investment grant on expenditure incurred after 26th October, 1970, unless the expenditure consists of a sum falling due under a contract made on or before that date. The provisions on ships are slightly different, and I shall refer to these in a moment. Clause 2 of the Bill in no way departs from the principles embodied in the 1971 Act.
As the Bill's provisions on hired assets and ships are of a technical nature, it would probably be more appropriate to discuss them in detail in Committee. All I say at this stage as regards hired assets is that but for this provision we should have the situation that a person hiring out equipment after 26th October, 1970, could not receive grant unless both he and the hirer on 26th October, 1970, had contracts for the supply of the same asset. It is hardly conceivable that this could happen in practice. For example, while a computer-leasing company may have a contract with a computer manufacturer for the supply of a computer and a contract with the customer for the lease of that computer, the customer will not at the same time have a contract with the manufacturer for the supply of the computer. I do not think it was the intention of the House that the Act should operate in this way.
As regards ships, the 1971 Act, in broad terms, permitted grant to be paid on the total cost of a ship, including extras ordered after 26th October, 1970. where,

a person was on 26th October, 1970, entitled to the benefit of a contract for the construction of a new ship.
Where money is borrowed by a shipping company from a bank to finance the building of a ship, as security for the loan the borrower usually assigns the benefit of the contract for its construction to the bank, so that technically the shipping company is not entitled to that benefit. The Clause makes it clear beyond any doubt that the transfer of the benefit of the contract as a security for a loan is not to be a bar to the owner obtaining grant on expenditure that he incurs on the ship. Once again, I think the House will agree that the provisions are in line with their earlier intentions and clarify these two technical points.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: As the Minister has just intimated, inevitably mineral development arouses controversy, simply because we have the difficulty, highlighted by the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), that minerals so often occur in beautiful areas of the country which also have the highest incidence of unemployment. There is an understandable conflict between the desire to preserve the environment and the equally strong desire to conserve employment opportunities for the people of the areas involved. No one born in a mining valley can be unaware of the scars, both environmental and human, which can arise from mineral development.
Even if we do not expand operations, we shall continue to have mining in this country. Its extent and location are open to discussion, and those matters are not being determined today. However, it is reasonable that, whatever level of exploration and exploitation we regard as appropriate, it should be undertaken against a background from which unnecessary obstacles have been removed.
When I was at the Department of Economic Affairs and later at the Ministry of Technology, I had a special responsibility for minerals. I tried to create an appropriate operational climate with appropriate safeguards for the environment. When I was first asked to look at the Whitehall end of the mineral set-up in this country I was horrified to discover that seven Departments were involved.
[MR. WILLIAMS.]
Five had actual mineral responsibilities. The other two had direct interests. The Treasury always has a direct interest when money is involved. Yet, of all these Departments not one had a direct policy interest. Therefore, there was no policy lead; there was no sense of direction in mineral policy at both Government and senior official level.
I was glad that by the time we left office in June, 1970, this dispersal of responsibility had at least been restricted and that only two Departments had a direct interest. Understandably, we felt that the construction minerals should remain with the appropriate Department, with everything else concentrated in the Ministry of Technology. I believe that virtually the same situation prevails today. I am sure that the possibility of having a purposeful policy towards mineral development has benefited from this structural change at the Whitehall end.
I also discovered that there was no systematic approach to mineral development. We started a mineral by mineral analysis of the potential and of the obstacles in this country. The Labour Government prepared and introduced measures to remove many of the arbitrary obstacles. For example, there was a technical legal brake on the exploration for and exploitation of uranium and radioactive materials. This we removed during our period in office once we had isolated and seen the need for it to be dealt with.
There was a financial disincentive. I think that even the most avid redistributionist would recognise that for a land- owner to be taxed at 23s. in the pound was hardly an inducement to get him to part with his land to mineral operators. It seemed that some adjustments were necessary here if we were to secure any easing of the transference of rights between current owners and would-be mineral operators. This we did in two stages. It was generally accepted by the Country Landowners' Association that the concession which we made in our last Budget was meaningful, and the mineral operators also found it helpful to them.
Finally, we looked at the morass of mineral rights acquisition problems. We analysed these and put forward proposals

with which I shall deal later. It seemed right to do that and progressively to clear irrelevant obstacles where possible without damaging essential planning scrutiny and contraint. For this reason, I believe that the conservationists, genuinely alarmed as they are, are unnecessarily alarmed by the proposals in the Bill.
Everyone acknowledges the debt which we owe to the Countryside Commission and to other environmentalists for the detailed scrutiny to which they subject every proposal which might harm our environment. On 14th July the Countryside Commission issued a Press notice in which, commenting on this proposal— it was not at that stage in Bill form, but it had been fully outlined by the Minister of State—said:
It could result in large-scale disturbance, and even destruction of some of our finest landscapes.
I think that this is a wrong assessment of the impact of the Bill. It is unlikely because, as the Minister for Industry rightly said in answer to an interjection, the Bill deals with exploration, not exploitation. There is no irreversible damage. There is often very little visible disturbance at the exploration stage.

Mr. George Lawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not much sense in paying out a lot of money for exploration unless it is to be followed by working? The important point is the working and what it might do.

Mr. Williams: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend has, in fact, anticipated my next point. When we know where the minerals are, we shall be in a better position to decide whether to do anything about them. The important proviso spelled out by the Minister is that normal planning procedures will still apply at the exploitation stage. If I read his memorandum correctly, which was distributed to industry, and his Press statement—I am an avid reader of everything which he produces; it is so witty and readable—he made it clear that there was no pre-commitment, in the event of the grant being given to help at the exploration stage, to allow exploitation. There is not pre-judging at the planning application level. This is an important point to remember. In any case, far from being seen as a step forward, this Measure is


merely an attempt to retract a step backwards which the Government took some time ago when they abolished investment grants.
The mineral industry—I made this point last week in the debate on the Gracious Speech—is an import substitution industry. We must remember the past constraint which the balance of payments has imposed on our growth. The country's mineral import Bill is over £2,000 million. The bill for copper, lead and tin in 1969 was running at over £360 million, and the Minister has told us today that imports of ferrous metals and ores are running at over £600 million. This is the magnitude of the impact of the balance of payments on our mineral needs.
Last week when I alluded to this matter I made the point that in the past when we have gone for 1 per cent. of growth in our economy—an extra £400 million in our G.D.P.—by the nature of our economy we have drawn into this country between £100 million and £120 million of extra imports. So there is a close relationship between growth, which every Government want and which has eluded all of us—it is a direct relationship, not a coincidental relationship—and the balance of payments. If we assume that we are able to achieve an import substitution of £100 million—I am not saying that this is the figure which we will achieve; I am putting forward a hypothetical case—it will mean that we can go for an extra 1 per cent. of growth in our economy, an extra £400 million in real income as a nation, without harming the balance of payments.
It is against this total economic background that we have to understand the importance of developing import substitution industries wherever possible. The scope is considerable. While we are all delighted at the progress which has been made on, for example, the Continental Shelf, nevertheless, the progress which has been made there is merely scratching the possibilities of mineral development, other than the hydro-carbons, which could exist there.
I recall that before leaving office—not voluntarily—in June, 1970, one of the major mineral companies made the point that at that stage it regarded Britain as standing fourth in the world in terms of attractiveness for mineral investment.

This measurement of attractiveness was arrived at by a rather interesting formula. Several factors were taken into account. Inevitably, the first was the actual mineral potential. We have had the mineral potential for some time. The second factor was political stability. Many of the countries which are competing with us for the investment of international mining companies do not have the political stability which we have tended to preserve. The third factor was the effectiveness of incentives. The combination of all these factors made us stand fourth in attractiveness to this one major company in its world investment decisions. It is because the last of these, the attractiveness of incentives for investment, was critically damaged by the abolition of the investment grant that we have this Bill before us today.
I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Alun Davies, who is not unknown to the right hon. Gentleman, of Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the foremost experts on mineral finance in this country. In a publication of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, dated January of this year, he said:
With its high-risk, capital-intensive and long lead-time characteristics the mining industry was particularly well served by the investment grant system, which supplied a stimulus to investment that is totally absent from the new tax-related allowances which are to replace it.
Perhaps it is because of that assessment by the industry that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman about a down-turn in interest, and that because of its assessment of the value of the grant that we have this Bill before us today.
On behalf of this side of the House I welcome the Bill for what it does, but I deplore it for what it fails to do, and for what it so easily could have done. I welcome it in so far as it facilitates exploration, but I regret that it contains no attempt to continue the process of removing unnecessary obstacles. I welcome the benefits which it gives to certain operators, particularly in the non-ferrous metals, but I criticise the complacency towards the problems of the sedimentary mineral operators.
I now turn to the first part of the Bill, and I ask the Minister—I assure him that I make this request in no snide way— to ensure that by the time we get to the Committee stage copies of the Act which
[MR. WILLIAMS.]
the Bill amends—the Investment and Building Grants Act, 1971—are available in the Vote Office. The last time that I asked for a copy of that Measure it was not available. I wanted it so that I could refer back to the original terminology. It will be difficult for back benchers to deal with this part of the Bill unless copies of that Act are available.

Sir J. Eden: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. I shall look into the matter at once.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I felt sure that he would cooperate in any way that he could.
I am not thinking of opposing the 35 per cent. grant. I realise that to the hon. Gentleman this is a politically acceptable method of admitting the error of his ways in abolishing investment grants, and I am always ready to welcome even the most reluctant conversion, despite the fact that attempts are made to conceal it. I live in hopes that it may lead to greater things, and that this may be the beginning of enlightenment.
I now propose to refer to a letter dated 27th August from the Department of Trade and Industry to the C.B.I. It said:
the business activities of the companies concerned are such that very few have at present adequate eligible profits against which to take advantage of the present scheme of capital allowances.
That is one reason put forward for this piece of legislation. But low profitability applies at this stage to wide sectors of industry in the United Kingdom, as was pointed out when investment grants were abolished. When we pointed it out, it led to the restatement of the Selsdon Man philosophy by the right hon. Gentleman, embodied in the immortal phrase "lame ducks". It would appear that lame ducks are acceptable in the mineral industry, but that they are not to be supported, even where doing so might mean saving jobs, in development areas. I imagine that the workers of Upper Clyde find this a rather interesting paradox in the Government's proposals.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny the impact of the abolition of investment grants on development areas, since even in that part of Wales which I represent the fact is that since the grants were

abolished the rate of fall of total male employment has doubled, the rate of increase among those registered has doubled, jobs in the pipeline have halved, and vacancies, even in the last month, have fallen a further 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. It seems anomalous that a principle is applicable to one industry, but is completely ignored where it could create jobs in wide areas of the economy if only it were applied to industry more generally.
It may be said that it is not the intention of the Government to encourage lame ducks even in this sector of the economy, but that it is the foreign operator—the hon. Gentleman referred to this, and it is a valid point—who is to be encouraged, the operator who has no previous profit record, and has no early opportunity therefore to write off his expenses against allowances. I do not deny that that is a valid argument. I gather that that is the reason for this Measure but, in that case, if we are happy for foreigners to come here and despoil our countryside, and if we are happy for them to come here and extract our minerals, why are not we equally happy to see them come here and set up factories? If they need this form of incentive to come here to operate in the mineral field, surely they should have this form of incentive to come here and set up jobs for workers in the development areas? If grants are necessary to attract them to mining, they are necessary to attract them to other sectors of the economy, too.
In the letter to which I referred from the Department of Trade and Industry as a justification for the introduction of incentives to help those who now lack adequate eligible profits, the Government condemn their whole incentive policy and recognise the falseness of their present devotion to tax allowance fetishism. The sense of shame which the Government have in this matter is revealed in the Title of the Bill—Mineral Exploration, etc. Bill. It is significant that the etc. refers to two amendments to the Act abolishing investment grants. The etc. suggests, first, that they are ashamed of it and, second, that they were hoping to slip this through and conceal their shame en route.
I shall not now go into detail on the question of the astonishing breadth of


the discretionary power in the Bill. The Minister said that that could be dealt with in Committee. But I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the definition of mineral, as the hon. Lady the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) said, in Clause 1 (5) literally means anything. "Anything that can be dug up" is virtually a paraphrase of what the subsection says.
Second, the area covered is anywhere within the confines of our national waters. The discretion given to the Minister appears to be absolute. It is nowhere explained, and nowhere defined legally. There is no apparent appeal against a ministerial decision. There is no indication of what factors the Minister will take into account in reaching his decision.
When we explore this discretionary power in Committee, we shall want to know why the Government exclude the cost effects of inflation from consideration in the grant, because in their document, "Mineral Exploration Incentive Scheme, A Guide For Industry", the Department, dealing with the payment of claims, says in paragraph 10:
Payment at the rate of 35 per cent. will be made on the actual costs incurred in carrying out the agreed programme except where these are higher than the estimated costs set out in the programme. In this event they will normally be made on the estimated cost.
In other words, a Government devoted to the pursuit of a galloping inflation now proceed to protect themselves from the rising cost of living in regard to grants.
But this is not only a Bill of contrition. It is also an appalling waste of opportunity. A parliamentary draftsman was available, legislative time was available and I am sure that the Government know that we on this side are always willing to be helpful in getting through reasonable legislation. If the hon. Member really cares about minerals, I am surprised that this opportunity was lost. One suspects that he has given way to a particularly strong lobby from one section of the industry.
It is clear, from the definition given in the memorandum to which I referred, that the Minister intends—he repeated this today—to exclude key sedimentary minerals from the operations of the Bill. Yet the demand for sand and gravel has

increased more in the last 40 years than the demand for any other mineral in this country, and the production of sand and gravel in the next decade will exceed the production of any mineral in this country other than coal.
The reason given in the Department's letter for the exclusion of sedimentary minerals and the inclusion of the four categories to which the Minister referred is that exploration and development involve great expenditure and considerable risk. I cannot help wondering how many hon. Members from development areas, how many from steel constituencies, see here the ingredients of a suitable definition of their own industry, of steel, a major employer in the development areas. After all, it is a high investment, rapidly innovating, markedly cyclical industry. It has all the elements of risk, and if risk is the further criterion to be adopted, the steel industry obviously qualifies.
Since thousands of jobs are being lost in the industry because of the loss of £100 million in investment grants, I hope that the Minister will seek to turn his mind as positively in the direction of the steel industry as he seems to have tried to do in relation to the mineral industry.
But the sedimentary mineral operators themselves point out that the risks there are very high—yet they are excluded. For example, the only cement works in Scotland was eventually sited after 28 sites had been examined. Very detailed boring was required on many of these sites to establish quality and quantity, yet the Department's letter says what the Minister repeated again today:
As with coal and iron ore, which are excluded from this scheme, the locations of these minerals"—
that is, the sedimentary minerals—
in Britain are broadly speaking well known".
Frankly, this letter must have been written by someone with little knowledge of the geology of this country or little knowledge of our knowledge of the geology of this country. If he is by any chance referring to the date provided by the Institute of Geological Sciences, he has obviously very little idea of the limited nature of the economic evaluation work done by I.G.S.
Indeed, Dr. Thurrell, who is head of the Mineral Assessment Unit at I.G.S.,
[MR. WILLIAMS.]
says, in the Quarry Managers Journal of January this year:
The information now being collected"—
he is referring to the information being collected by I.G.S. in relation to the minerals which the Minister seemed to feel fairly sanguine about—
is less detailed or densely distributed than that needed for commercial proof of a particular deposit.
In another section he says:
But the variability of the deposits is probably the most difficult consideration involved in appraising their value and their workability, since it cannot be inferred from existing geological maps and memoirs.
So the mere knowledge of general location still does not remove the risk, even at the early stage, for the operator in the sedimentary minerals.
While gravel and limestone occurrence may be generally known, detailed borings are still required to establish whether the deposits are in commercial quantities or whether they are merely inches thick and unusable commercially. Even where relativity testing has been carried out, one still needs further testing and expenditure to establish quantity and quality.
For example, the terrace gravels and effluvial deposits are notorious for the unpredictable incidence of sterile areas within what appear to be profitable areas for operation. Limestone is not universally suitable for manufacture into cement, and a heavy boring programme has to be followed to establish the suitability of the particular limestone in the particular area.
Finally, there is another risk which the sedimentary operators share with the metalliferous operators. That is the risk that, at the end of the day, they will have incurred their expenditure but may still be refused planning permission. Here again, the Department's letter—the only thing correct about it, I believe, was the punctuation, although I have not checked that too closely—says:
… if a refusal of planning permission results in a firm and manifest decision to abandon a particular mineral exploration, S. 62 of the Capital Allowances Act 1968 applies with consequent relief in respect of the abortive exploration.
In other words, what they are suggesting is that an operator can claim against tax if he does not get planning permis-

sion. This is the Department's advice to the C.B.I. on 27th August this year.
On the other hand, I have a letter dated 11th May this year from Westminster District 3, H.M. Inspector of Taxes, to The Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers Limited, in which, in response to a claim exactly parallel to the type of claim referred to in the Department's letter, the inspector says:
I do not think that a claim under Section 62, Capital Allowances Act 1968, applies here. It would appear that the search for the mineral deposits was completed and not 'given up'. The results will always be available to the Company and it may well be that the planning conditions will alter somewhat in future.
What an anomalous situation. The Ministry says, "If you do not get planning permission, you need not worry: you can get tax relief," while the tax man says, "Since you had completed your necessary investigations before you made planning application, you cannot have abandoned it, because you have completed it." This is an utter absurdity. The Department seems to be somewhat at variance with the tax authorities.
I remember when I was nearly a political colleague of the Minister—I was a candidate for Poole in the 1959 election—I held an "Any Questions" with the then Member for Poole, whom the hon. Gentleman will know very well. During that "Any Questions", the then Member was asked what tax concessions his Government had made. He said that there had been certain concessions for the man on £10,000 with two children, and other concessions for the men on £5,000 and £3,000. Voices from the audience asked, "What about us?" He said that men on £2,000 a year had also received a reduction of such and such.
Still cries of "What about us?" came from the audience. Aghast that men in such poverty should exist in his constituency, the then Member said, "Since our Government have been in office, those people no longer pay any tax." Whereupon, there was a supplementary question from a Councillor Froude, of the Poole Council, "I wonder whether I could persuade our Member to come and talk to our tax inspector, because the tax inspector does not understand the system as well as the hon. Gentleman does." Will the Minister please talk to this particular tax inspector because he does not seem to understand the operation of the system as well as the Department does.

Mr. Lawson: Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said earlier about it being a Bill concerned primarily with exploration and not with working, is he not suggesting that there must be a heavy bias on the part of the Ministry; in other words, that working should be carried out if at all commercially feasible?

Mr. Williams: That is a question for the Minister rather than for me to answer, and I have no doubt that he will wish to do so when he replies to the debate. I should like to think that there is no predisposition to judging these matters in advance, and I am sure the Minister wishes to be as objective as possible in this matter.
The fault of the Bill is that it has missed opportunities to do what could have been done. We recently had an important debate in which a glaring example was given of the need for something to be done. When we were discussing the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1971, considerable pressure was put on the Minister to do something positive. Certain hon. Members who are present today were present on that occasion. They will agree that that pressure came from both sides of the House. As a result, the Minister had to retreat in a state of considerable confusion, and he muttered promises about the whole issue being reconsidered. However, that reconsideration has so far come to nothing.
Here we have an opportunity to remedy the problems that that set of Regulations created. The objectives of those Regulations were, in all fairness, desirable. I said that at the time, and everyone agreed that the three objectives were necessary. The first was to shake out old planning consents. There are many such consents about which it is abundantly clear that no action will be taken, but they are there blocking development. The second was to give greater security of reserves to genuine operators. The third objective, an appropriate one, was to ensure that a chance was given in respect of old consents which were going to be worked for modern restoration standards to be applied.
The standard of public expectation in restoration work has changed markedly, not merely in the last five years but,

strangely enough, over the whole of the last 20 years. The method chosen by the Government has been to say that in respect of old consents—that is, consents granted before 1st April, 1969—the work must have started by 1st April, 1979. If not, application must be resubmitted for planning consent. There is, therefore, a deadline on these consents, which is that the work must have started by 1st April, 1979.
The shortcomings of this are clear, and in our earlier debate they were argued with genuine strength from both sides. On that occasion the Minister was in a minority of one and the pressure on him was equally heavy from the benches opposite, simply because the Government are not achieving what they set out to achieve, which is security of reserves.
These provisions could have been drawn up only by a Department which was not responsible for minerals or which thought it was not so responsible. Astonishingly, though, one discovers that the Department still carries the responsibility in this sphere which it carried in our last year in office.
There are completely different time spans involved in the scale of operation for different minerals. For example, with sand and gravel there must, for the operation to be viable, be a 15- to 20-year supply of resources to justify the initial investment. In cement, which is a multimillion pound operation—tens of millions of pounds are required for the initial capital provision—one must think in terms of 60 years or more.
Here are bona fide operators sitting on resources for which they have provided the capital being told that if they did not start their operations in 1969, they will have to resubmit. What is unreasonable about that, one may ask. The answer is that it overlooks the fact that there is no single planning consent for any area about which we are speaking.
The increasing scale of operations in this industry means that it is almost impossible for one planning consent to give adequate reserves. Thus, any reserve area in any part of the mineral industry normally consists of many or a multitude of existing consents. We are asking the industry either to submit, and thereby to face all the uncertainty that


goes with that—there is great uncertainty in view of the large investment sums involved these sums were committed on the assumption that the battle had been won—or undertake uneconomic evasion, which is to have premature starts in every area, even though they may not wish to work those areas in the period before 1979.
The Minister must be aware that this is the opposite to good husbandry of our national mineral resources. It could also be environmentally harmful, with land being taken out of agricultural use which could otherwise remain agriculturally viable for the next couple of decades, until required. This land will be taken out of agricultural use to evade the resubmission for planning application. This will defeat the objective of the Government of getting modern restoration standards applied, for if they can evade the need to resubmit, there will be no opportunity for new standards to be applied.
It is no good saying, as Lord Sandford said in another place in April:
It would be unrealistic to assume that Section 65 will be allowed to bring essential workings to a halt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd April. 1971; Vol. 371, c. 902.]
If it will not do that, then what is the nature of the exercise? There is bound to be uncertainty and opposition once one gets the reopening of past planning consents; and, as I say, the industry made its investment on the assumption that it had security in respect of that investment.
The solution I suggested in our earlier debate, and which I repeat today, could be accommodated in this Bill. It is that the Government should set aside the need to resubmit if work has not started by 1969 if—and it is a categorical "if"—prior agreement between the operator and the planning authority has been reached on modern restoration standards, and if the planning authority is satisfied that he is a genuine operator.
In other words, the planning authority will still have the right to say, "No, we will not give approval without application". On the other hand, it will be able to reach reasonable terms with the operator on restoration without involving all the uncertainties that occur with the present method. This would meet the amenity needs of planning authorities and

the security needs of operators. A Clause could be added to the Bill in Committee to enable local authorities to have this power, and I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter between now and the Committee stage with a view to taking this step. This matter is extremely worrying to mineral operators. It is a non-political matter and is clearly a sphere in which the Minister could make a worthwhile contribution.
The other opportunity missed was to introduce mineral rights legislation, though I was glad to hear the Minister say that he is looking at such legislation. When I left office less than 18 months ago we were very near a consensus between the land interests and mineral interests on the form of such legislation, and I am surprised that such a consensus has not been arrived at.
Hon. Members who are not acquainted with the nature of the mineral industry should appreciate that when one is dealing with a large-scale mineral operation—as I have pointed out, these operations are on an increasingly large scale—it is difficult to undertake it if one is confronted with the fragmentation of mineral rights. This means that many people own the rights in a locality. Surface rights are also owned by a number of people. Further, mineral rights are frequently separated from surface rights, so permutating the difficulties, and the owners of both are often either unknown or, where they are known, are untraceable.
It is therefore a matter of high priority to all sectors of the industry that something should be done to improve the possibility of acquiring mineral rights. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat this matter with a greater degree of urgency than, I am sorry to say, appears to have been shown in the last year or two. In the meantime, he can give the industry a helpful gesture of good will—

Mr. Laurance Reed: The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy urged these changes in about 1958 or 1959. Why did not the hon. Gentleman act when in office?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member should not make trivial points like that. So far, we have avoided such trivial debating points. I made it clear that when I first took ministerial interest in minerals there was nowhere in the White-hall system anyone who had a clear job of


finding out the general problems and putting them right. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but on this occasion he must listen to those who have lived through it and have tried to remedy the defects. At least we tried to do something. The situation existed during the period of the last Conservative Government and during our period of office. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that legislation of this kind can simply be devised by a Minister saying this must be done he does not really know the nature of the competing lobbies.

Mr. Reed: Those problems were identified in the middle of the 'fifties, and it is quite unfair to suggest that our own Government have been dilatory in this respect when in six years of office the Labour Government failed to do anything.

Mr. Williams: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman bothers to make such points. As I have said, we set out to have consultations with the various interested groups. We tried to reach a consensus. In 1969 I had prepared and the Department of Economic Affairs had published a set of proposals which themselves were the basis for further consultation. It took a couple of years to get that done, and we had not then reached the drafting stage. But we had reached the stage where there was a virtual consensus. A package agreement had been arrived at whereby financial incentives would be given to the landowner and help given to the mineral operator. That was being seen as a package. There was no reason why when we left office there could not have been a reasonable legislative proposal within the following legislative year if draftsmanship time had been available.
However, since the Minister is not able to do anything immediately, I ask him to consider the recommendations made last week by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), to have a simple one-Clause amending Bill to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1966, which consolidates all the relevant legislation dating from 1923.
It is time we got round the irrelevant and illogical distinction between preferred and non-preferred minerals. This distinction, while illogical and impossible to justify, carries important legal debarments to operators in the non-preferred area.

There should therefore be the same access to court adjudication in respect of those minerals currently scheduled as non-preferred as there is for those in the preferred sector.
It may be said that the court procedure for preferred minerals is cumbersome, slow and costly, and that is true. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a help. It is better than no solution at all. It may be said that only about two dozen cases have been brought under the enabling legislation, but the fact is that the industry is convinced that the wider availability of these powers would encourage voluntary agreement. The fact that in the non-preferred sector it was known to people owning the mineral surface rights that operators had access to the courts would lead to voluntary agreements being reached more readily. That being so, the industry sets great store by those powers.
Since the existence of that distinction is an inexplicable anomaly, I must tell the Minister that if he is not willing to add a Clause to achieve the abolition of that distinction, I shall seek to do so in Committee. If such an Amendment is then acceptable to the Chair I shall also, as I do not believe this to be a party political matter, invite some of the Minister's hon. Friends who, I believe, share my view of this outdated distinction, to sponsor that Amendment with me in the hope that we can persuade the Minister that this is something that can usefully be done in the short term.
I am sorry to have spoken at such great length, but I am afraid that nearly three years of study of the subject when I was in Government have left me deeply concerned about what the Minister referred to as the years of neglect—under various Governments: I do not make a particular political point about it. I recognise the need to balance conservation with economic need, but I equally believe that obstacles which provide no useful purpose should he removed where possible.
The Bill makes up in small part for the folly of abandoning investment grants, but it pinpoints, though this was not intended by the Minister, similar needs in other industries outside the mining sector. Unfortunately, the Bill misses the chance to improve the general operating environment in the mineral industry. We shall not oppose Second Reading, but


in Committee we shall try to remedy the Bill's defects.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has ranged very widely, and has spoken with the knowledge of an ex-Minister. He has no doubt been stimulated by his visit to Dorset as a parliamentary candidate into being more interesting than otherwise he might have been.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions. He talked about low profitability and mentioned the shipping industry, about which I shall have something to say a little later. He spoke of the importance of import substitution, with which we must all agree. He referred to the scars left by past mineral development. Happily, we in Dorset have few of these scars, apart from a few chalk pits. I must say that the two Clauses appear to be as different from each other as chalk is from cheese, but in investment grants the hon. Gentleman succeeded in finding a connection between them.
Clause 2 corrects certain anomalies in the ending of investment grants. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt whatever that it was right to end those grants—they were so very liable to abuse in various directions—but, in the same breath, I must point out that they were of enormous advantage to the shipping industry, an advantage which that industry will miss very much.
It is very satisfying to note that in the last year the British merchant fleet increased by 1½ million tons to 27·3 million tons, although it is still behind Liberia with 38·6 million tons and Japan with 30·5 million tons. But the advantage of the impetus from investment grants will die out in the end. There are still a certain number of ships in the pipeline, but even without investment grants the rate of increase in our fleet was considerably less than that of Norway.
My hon. Friend will know that the Rochdale Report recommended that if investment grants were taken away from shipping something comparable should be given instead. I urge my hon. Friend, in any talks that he has with the industry in the near future on this question,

to try to persuade the Treasury that further taxation concession is necessary for this very low return industry to enable it to compete not only with Liberia but with competitors in other parts of the world which enjoy enormous tax concessions, some of which are very hard to quantify. I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend has removed the two anomalies about shipping in the winding up of investment grants.
I return to Clause 1. In the light of my experience in my constituency, I find this Clause a little harder to justify. But I was extremely relieved to hear that my hon. Friend had in mind mostly metals and not oil. The House is being asked to vote not less than £50 million and up to 35 per cent. of the expense of exploring mineral resources, which is quite a lot of money, and we need to be satisfied that this encouragement is needed. My hon. Friend spoke as though only exploitation could be a danger to the environment. But exploration as well can be such a danger.
At present I am receiving many complaints from my constituency about a certain amount of research taking place in the search for oil and natural gas. This is being done by Seismograph Services Ltd., on behalf of Berkeley Petroleum (U.K.) Ltd., which I understand is a Canadian company. There is a good deal of complaint and indignation in this area, which has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Dorset Evening Echo had a recent headline:
Outcry over Dorset oil probe.
Fears were expressed that the discovery of oil in West Dorset would be to the detriment of our natural environment, and a survey team went round and found widespread fears about what is taking place.
At present this company, quoting in aid some authority from my hon. Friend's Department, is indulging in a lot of underground explosions which are having the effect of interfering with underground water. Only today I received details about an old lady who had not only had windows of a cottage blown in but whose well had completely dried up in consequence of what had been done. I understand that this company should not be allowed to go on to private ground


without permission, but there have been allegations that trespass has occurred, and there was an attempt, even, to enter the churchyard to carry out these experiments, but the vicar refused permission.
This kind of thing is unreasonable. It does not need Government money and encouragement. There is the danger to underground water supplies and to houses which are shaken by the explosions. At the end of the day, we have to ask whether, if oil were found in Dorset, it is a suitable area—it is an area of outstanding natural beauty—upon which to inflict these scars on the environment, especially at present when everyone is so much more aware of the importance of the environment.
I ask my hon. Friend to investigate what is happening in this area of West Dorset because it is causing a great deal of alarm. I query whether it is necessary for the Bill to cover activities of this kind and to make possible the grant of public money for such activities. I also ask him whether on exploration as well as exploitation there should not be some consultation with the Department of the Environment.
I understand that these activities are not subject to any planning permission at present. But if we have explosions which interfere with underground water supplies planning permission should apply. If my hon. Friend cannot amend the Bill I hope that he will go very slowly in extending its provisions to exploration for oil or natural gas on land.
As I have said, I welcome Clause 2, but I hope that my hon. Friend will apply Clause 1 in moderation.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson: I am very disturbed about the Bill. I do not propose to seek to divide the House upon it, but I want to stress in what way I am disturbed. I underline the point made by the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby). It seems that the Minister has sought to convey the impression that the Government were primarily concerned about exploration and about knowing what the mineral resources of the nation happen to be. But for this purpose outside mineral prospectors are being brought in, and the Government are prepared, under the

Bill, to spend up to £50 million to get this job done. I should have thought that if the nation wanted to know what its resources were in this connection, and was prepared to spend £50 million for that information, we could have found ways less ominous than those to be followed here.
At present there is a soil research classification being carried out under which all the nation's soils and their potentialities are being listed. This is being done not by bringing in people on this sort of basis but by Government Departments being paid to do a specific job, and the information is coming to the nation to be utilised as the nation thinks best in its interests.
On my reading of the Bill, all the signs make me feel very doubtful. I am disturbed that there is no Minister of the Department of the Environment included in the Ministers sponsoring the Bill. I know that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is attached to that Department, but his Ministry, insofar as it is one, is the Ministry of Local Government and Development. We have heard much from the Secretary of State for the Environment about what he and his Department hope and intend to do, but there is nothing about this in the Bill. If his name were included in the Bill, I should be a little less doubtful than I am at present.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), for whom I have high regard, talked about the conservationists being unnecessarily alarmed, he did not settle or reduce any of my fears. I am not much of a conservationist, but I, like an increasing number of others, have a feeling for the country, our responsibilities for it and what harm we may do in the efforts to make a quick profit—I do not use the term "profit" in a derogatory sense.
When he introduced the Bill, the Minister talked of the possibility of work of this sort now being done because low grade deposits had become economically workable. Those were not, perhaps, exactly his words, but I am sure that he would not challenge me when I say that that was what he was saying. I understand that workings which till fairly recently would have been regarded as uneconomic have now become economic.
[MR. LAWSON.]
I am told that because of new methods of extraction ore can be extracted to one part in 100 with 99 per cent. scrap.
This is not a question of a hole in the ground down which miners work. It is a question of huge dragnet excavators tearing up great areas, with the country being permanently destroyed. There will be despoliation beyond reparation.
The River Clyde is well known, but what is not so well known is that at one time the River Clyde was a great salmon river. Trout can still be fished in the Clyde. Many anglers have fed the river with trout over the years. Yet permission has been given for sand and gravel to be extracted from the river bed. In a few months considerable areas of a beautiful river which took millions of years to lay down were turned into something not unlike a canal.
As in the case with the exploration here contemplated, what happened to the Clyde was to be subject to the normal planning procedures. The trouble about those procedures is that those engaged in them are powerfully influenced by job prospects. Because of local pressures and because of the chance of having a few hundred jobs for a few years, irreparable damage is done. So it is not enough to say that the normal planning procedures will apply.
The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West said enough to show that both of them are concerned primarily to make it easy for those who want to extract minerals. Far be it from me to deny anyone opportunities to extract minerals, but increasingly not only hon. Members but the public at large are concerned that their country be not unnecessarily despoiled. The fact that planning procedures will apply provides no guarantee.
I do not say that I have a ready answer. I have not. However, I suggest that institutions such as the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy be brought into this and be charged with the duty of being satisfied, before permission is granted for exploration or exploitation to proceed, that irreparable damage will not be done. The Countryside Commission has a vested interest in preserving the country's natural beauty. We should be assured that, before decisions are taken to allow action

which could cause irreparable damage to some of our most beautiful areas, the interests not only of local people, who may be concerned primarily about the provision of jobs, but also of the nation at large, and not only of this generation but of generations to come, have been adequately considered.
The time has long since passed when it can justifiably be said that because somebody can provide jobs or make money from some enterprise he should be allowed to do as he pleases. There must be some means of ensuring that irreparable damage is not caused. The damage which will be caused to any stretch of land must be weighed against the consequences of developing that stretch of land.
I expect much stronger assurances from the Minister than those that he has given us. If I am sufficiently lucky to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee I hope to hear him say at that stage that provision will be made for an organisation such as the Countryside Commission or the Nature Conservancy to be given standing. Perhaps the responsible Department should be the Department of the Environment, because the Department of Trade and Industry has a bias in favour of development such as this.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Laurance Reed: I am pleased that the Bill will give the Government additional powers to accelerate the development of our Continental Shelf. After all, this area covers about 186,000 square miles, which is twice the size of our island.
Since we acquired the exclusive right to explore and exploit resources in this area, there has been very rapid progress in the search for oil and natural gas. In the case of minerals other than oil and gas—the hard minerals—progress has been very slow and we know little about the mineral-bearing potential of our shelf areas. Some information has been yielded by the search for hydrocarbons. There is also a modest shelf programme directed by the Institute of Geological Sciences.
About 10 per cent. of our coal comes from beneath the sea, from 17 collieries in all. About 10 per cent. of our aggregates are taken from offshore, mainly in


Lincolnshire and off the coasts of East Anglia in the southern North Sea. In addition, I understand that there are very large lime deposits in the Minches useful as a fertiliser and in the manufacture of cement. There is probably a very large iron ore body existing beneath the Wash. I am told by the Institute of Geological Sciences that the North Sea could hold as much as a quarter of the world's potash resources. We know that the heavily mineralised areas of Cornwall and North Wales extend considerably beneath the seabed and in the past tin has been extracted from those areas.
This Bill is something of a departure for the Government, in that it is a departure from the lame duck policy. We are encouraging industry in this case by Government intervention.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: But these are not lame ducks.

Mr. Reed: That is true, but it is an area where the Government are prepared to intervene, as opposed to their usual practice of non-intervention. I welcome this policy because I think it is possible to justify in the national interests an attempt to accelerate the development of our offshore areas. I would state the advantages as follows: first of all, security of supply. This country is dependent, as perhaps no other industrial country is, on imports of minerals. We are, therefore, exceedingly vulnerable to any change which may arise from political or economic reasons. It seems to me only prudent that we should make the best use of any economic mineral resources that we have.
Secondly, I suggest it can help the balance of payments. That is rosy enough at the moment but it remains to be seen whether that will be the case when we have renewed economic growth.
Thirdly, as this is a small island there are colossal pressures on a limited land area, and a number of hon. Members have already expressed their anxiety about some of the nation's national parks and other beauty areas which are obviously vulnerable to mineral workings on land. Clearly, if we can exploit the same minerals offshore in the less crowded parts of our seaways, this is advantageous and we can relieve pressure on the land.
The case for accelerating development of our shelf areas through this Bill goes a

long way beyond that. In the exploitation of the sea it is not just a question of exploitation of the resources themselves. It is a question of acquiring the engineering capability to exploit them. At this moment marine science and engineering is in a very elementary stage, and if we can encourage and accelerate the development of our own shelf areas we can stimulate progress and development in this area too. This is especially important for a variety of reasons. The sale or hire of the ironmongery for exploitation of our seabed resources is a very profitable enterprise—as profitable as exploiting the resources themselves, or it can be. In the case of oil, which I agree the Bill does not touch, in the last 10 years there has been a total investment of £7,000 million in the technology for research and exploitation. This is world-wide of course. It is estimated that in the next 10 years the figure will be doubled: about £15,000 million will be spent in search and exploitation for marine oil and approximately two-thirds of this will be spent on technology. This is good business which we can stimulate indirectly by a programme of this kind. Certainly it is useful and important if we can avoid the situation that we have with oil where 90 per cent. of all technology employed in the sea is provided by the Americans.
The second reason why it would he advantageous, following exploitation and acceleration thereof of our shelf areas, is that the technology allows one to have access to and take possession of the resources outside the Continental Shelf area. Some new ocean rÉgime may be established which will reduce the proprietory rights which attach to superior technology in this field, but any country with the ability and the know-how to exploit these resources more profitably than another will always be in a position to outbid the less efficient operators when seeking concessions.
The final advantage accruing from this Bill, namely, that we can accelerate development of our shelf, is the understanding that natural resources per se, do not really exist. This seems rather a curious remark, but it is true. They do not exist divorced from the technology of their exploitation. The obvious example is uranium which has always been in existence but it is only in the present century that we have acquired the know-how


with which to utilise it. Natural gas in the North Sea has been there for about 140 million years, or even longer, according to which theory one subscribes to, but it is only the technology which we now have which allows us to exploit it. Bearing in mind that between now and the end of the century the total consumption of metals in the world will exceed all that consumed in the last 2,000 years, it seems to me altogether sensible for a country like ours to accelerate the development of the technology and the know-how that will allow us to enlarge our base of usable resources in this country and in the world at large.
With those observations I will close, pointing out to the Minister that when he uses his discretionary power under the Bill he will have the difficult task of deciding where to invest the money—in land metals or in seabed metals—and I hope he will consider some of the advantages that will accrue to this country and to the world in general if he makes the decision in favour of development of the Continental Shelf.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has taken a keen interest in mineral and mining matters since he came to the House. He began his remarks disarmingly by saying that the Bill presents something of a departure from the previous policies of the Conservative Government over the last 12 or 18 months. Something of a departure! I think that is possibly the understatement of the year so far.
The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that the Bill should be supported for reasons of security of supply, balance of payments, costs and the ability to use our own engineering techniques, with all of which I wholeheartedly agree. He and I both come from the County Palatine of Lancashire. Our two cities are not too far apart. Bolton, east or west, is in the heart of the Lancashire coalfields. The hon. Gentleman must know that his own Minister is at the moment allowing and encouraging the importation of foreign high-priced coal. Will he join us on these benches in arguing against his Ministry allowing the importation of minerals on precisely the grounds that he has mentioned this afternoon—namely,

security of supply, cost and the use of British resources? After what he said, he should join us in asking his Minister to cut down imports of foreign coal.

Mr. Laurance Reed: Yes, but only if it is economical to do so—not at any cost.

Mr. Ogden: The import price of South African or Polish coal to Thamesside is from £225 to £250 per ton delivered. The price of British coal is £140 to £160 a ton. In terms of cost or quality—any way one likes to look at it—British is still best.
There is a tradition that Second Reading debates are allowed, rightly, very wide limits. I make no complaint of this, although there were times when I thought the limits were being stretched very wide this afternoon. I was humming a little tune on the lines of "Land of Hope and Glory". I am sorry to paraphrase it, but my version went something like this:
Wider still and wider
Shall the limits be set.
Good Lord, give me patience,
He has not sat down yet.
With that in mind—I pick out nobody in particular, but we have not a lot of time for this debate—I intend to speak about the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.
We should support any legislation which will encourage the proper use of British resources and increase our balance of payments. The Minister referred to £100 million as his hope. We should support anything which will help to provide employment, whether it be in the Scottish Highlands, the Welsh Valleys or the Lakes, the East Country or the West Country. These are intentions that we should support. We may criticise the ways in which it is hoped to effect these intentions, but we should certainly support them.
The Minister pointed out that the Bill makes no change in the existing laws regarding the protection, conservation or security of the areas in which there is to be drilling, exploration and, possibly, mining later on. So the conservationists on both sides—not the Conservatives, for no one would ever suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is a Conservative, though he is


a great conservationist—need have no fears.
However, it is implicit that exploitation will take place, if the potential is there. No one would ever suggest that we should put Government money and private money into exploring and finding natural resources and then say, "That is fine. We shall leave them lying there, we shall not use them, we shall carry on importing". So the implication is that it is exploration for the purpose of exploitation, and we shall have to watch how matters stand in relation to that end product.
Like my hon. Friends, I give a cautious welcome to the purpose and intention of the Bill, cautious because it must at the same time be said that, only a few months ago, the Government were insisting that their policy was one of non-intervention, that they would not interfere in the normal market forces, that Government expenditure and Government investment must be curtailed, that subsidies would be kept for the farmers and no one else, and that everyone else had to stand on his own feet.
My curiosity in this respect is enhanced when the Bill is introduced by the Minister for Industry, although his name does not appear on the back of it. The hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber for a moment, and now the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has taken over his duty and is watching the progress of debate. His name is on the Bill. I am curious, as I say, when I recall that, at the time when we were being told that the Government were non-interventionist and were determined to cut Government expenditure and subsidies, it was at least reputed that the Minister for Industry and his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury were the hardest of all the hard-liners. We were given to understand that this was their policy, and, indeed, their actions confirmed it. Yet today it is these two Ministers who are concerned in introducing a Bill which completely reverses their previous policies and opens the way for a subsidy.
There are reports of policy changes, and there are reports that there will be changes of Ministers. I do not want to help or harm either of the two hon. Gentlemen. From my point of view, if

we are to have a Conservative Government, I prefer to see true-blooded Tories on the Government Front Bench, and one could hardly find two better examples of that than the Minister for Industry and his hon. Friend. The sooner people outside realise what they stand for, the sooner we can get rid of them. I do not want any "Lib-Labs" on the Treasury Bench.
I accept the intention of the Bill, as I say, though I must comment that it is not spelled out in any great detail. If a Labour Minister had been bringing forward this kind of subsidy Bill, what roars of protest, what cries of, "Blank cheque" and, "Giving away the taxpayers' money" we should hear from the Conservative benches. They have been remarkably quiet so far this afternoon.
In my view, the Long Title could well be expanded, difficult though it usually is to expand a Long Title. It may be simply enough to drill, to explore, to put down, say, 200 bore-holes in a given area, and assume from one's results that there are mineral resources underneath, but only when one actually goes down and starts looking in the earth itself does one find out whether there are geological faults and so on and what the situation actually is. So it may not be enough just to explore and to test. The provisions of this Bill, or a parallel Bill, should, I suggest, follow through the first few years of the working life of a mine, if that is what we are really talking about. If the real purpose is to be carried through, it will not be sufficient simply to stop at testing and not allow for a transitional period covering exploitation in controlled circumsances.
Clause 1(3) is the ultimate in providing for discretionary payments. If Ministers concerned with the environment and with housing had a Clause like this, they would be delighted. Every grant is subject to some kind of regulation. There are discretionary grants and standard grants, but under Clause 1(3) the Secretary of State may make payments or may not. The only limit is a payment up to 35 per cent. of expenditure incurred. He may charge interest or he may not, he may defer it, and so on. He can do almost anything.
I take it that what the Minister does will depend on viability and other considerations, cost increases and so on.
[MR. OGDEN.]
There must be some sort of standard. For example, we do not want one company exploring in one part of the country to have better terms or advantages over others. This, to take up the Minister's words, would not be fair competition. So there must be some guidelines stated for our consideration in Committee and at later stages showing what the conditions might be.
Within the limits of £25 million, and then £50 million, however, the Minister has absolute discretion as to how he uses that money. It may be decided that he will use the £25 million over the first five years. Perhaps he could tell us in what phases it might be done. Does he envisage a large drawing in the first year or two, or will it be spread over the five years, £5 million in each year? Further, what is the demand which he expects for the first £25 million?
I take it that the Order covering the second £25 million will be subject to affirmative Resolution. That is how I read the Bill. That would be the normal procedure, and it would give us an opportunity to examine the matter again.
To whom are these moneys expected to go? The Minister mentioned foreign companies. In view of our engineering and mineral working skills, our drilling techniques and the resources which the National Coal Board has, I do not much welcome emphasis on the possibility of foreign companies coming in, even though they will have to establish British-based companies. I have in mind here what was said both by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and by the hon. Member for Bolton, East. Let us do it ourselves if we can. Let us control it ourselves if we can. If we had a Labour Government, I should be asking for our own public corporation so that we could direct it, but with a Conservative Government that would be a waste of time.
The Minister gave some idea of where and for what the exploration might be— fluorspar in the South-East, was it?— with a mention of Yorkshire and Wales. I noticed that one of my hon. Friends eagerly pricked up his ears when Wales was mentioned, because he has some connection with exploration for gold in Merioneth.
We were told yesterday that, as a result of the efforts of Ministers and a change in Government policy over the past six months, credit facilities are readily available. Apparently, apart from my own bank manager, everyone is eagerly trying to lend money to everyone else. If companies have valid schemes, if they have done their preliminary exploration, and if they are financially sound organisations with good expertise, why should they have to come to the Government for money? Why should they not go to one or other of the finance houses which, we are told, are more than eager to pour their money into the pockets of others and draw back their profits?
Why should the Government compete in this business? True, they have always said that they were in favour of competition, but I had not thought that they would be guilty of wanting to give subsidies. It was never suggested that they would ever subsidise private industry or that they would compete with the merchant and private banks. So why does the Minister expect that, in this free credit era, a company will have to come to the Government, unless, of course, he expects that only those companies which cannot get the money from the banks will be the ones coming to the Government? If that is it, it can hardly be called sound finance.
Now, the question of "lifted or extracted". The Minister covered this point partly in answer to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell). We take it now that hydrocarbon oils are included, but it is not the Minister's intention to use the Bill in that connection. Next, the question of ships. I imagine that somewhere in the mind of those who drafted the Bill is the thought of provision for drilling off the Continental Shelf for natural oil and gas. Are we to take it that the word "ship" would cover a drilling barge, a drilling rig or an exploitation rig, not just a ship? I do not want to go into the mysteries of the last Bill dealing with matters of this sort. Hon. Members here present will well remember it and our discussions—I shall not use the technical term—of the man who would be the rig manager. I take it that they are the chief whatever it was that he was


pushing, and that they will include ships, drilling barges, drilling rigs and exploitation rigs.
Clause 3(2) says:
(2) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.
That is not an unusual phrase to find in a Bill, but whilst in normal circumstances we might expect the Northern Ireland Government to be able to introduce equivalent legislation, most tragically in the present circumstances it would be very surprising if they had time to carry a similar Bill through Stormont. Is not it possible to consider the exclusion of that subsection, or is it, perhaps, that they already have similar legislation?

Mr. Alan Williams: It is an interesting paradox that the investment grant scheme has been retained in Northern Ireland, where there is a Conservative Government. It has been debarred only for Wales, Scotland, the North region and other development areas in Great Britain.

Mr. Ogden: That answers my point extremely well. They know how to hold on to the good things in Northern Ireland at times.
I raised that point because we were reminded in the newspapers some time ago that the island of Rockall had been claimed once again for Her Majesty and is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the Bill is to apply to the Continental Shelf, and if, as we are told, there are great mineral resources in one form or another around the island of Rockall, that question is important. I wanted to make sure that the island fell within our sovereignty.
I have asked many questions. The answers will be important, and we shall want to study them. Subject to our receiving helpful information from the Minister, the House should give the Bill its Second Reading. No doubt it will do so, and then we shall give it close consideration in Committee. We have almost a Committee here now. I hesitate ever to volunteer for a Committee, but being on the Committee to consider this Bill might keep me off some others on which I do not want to serve in the near future.
This is a good Bill in its intention. It is a major piece of legislation representing

a major change of Government policy. It comes rather late, but we welcome it none the less.

5.34 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) will forgive me if I do not take up all his very interesting arguments. When I intervened in the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend suggested that my intervention was more appropriately to be made in Committee. He may now have some inclination of the kind of Committee stage he will have if the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby has the good fortune to serve on it. The hon. Gentleman will see from yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT that the Selection Committee has been appointed. I will say no more than that.
I intervened to ask for clarification of the position of hydrocarbon oils under the Bill, quoting Clause 1(5), which says quite simply:
In this section 'mineral deposits' includes any natural deposits capable of being lifted or extracted from the earth.
That has given the key to many problems that beset hon. Members who do not have the experience of those who represent mining constituencies, such as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), who spent three years in the Department of Trade and Industry. My constituency has not contributed, and is not likely ever to contribute, much to the fluorspar, copper and nickel resources of this country. But the chalklands of the southern half of England are widely thought to have substantial oil deposits beneath them.
I accept all my hon. Friend's arguments in introducing the Bill. Obviously, it would be to this country's advantage if we could assure ourselves of home stocks and supplies of the base metals and minerals that we have to import, which come from areas of political uncertainty. Moreover, it would help our balance of payments, and they should be cheaper, since freight and transport costs would not be such a factor. There is also the employment prospect.
My hon. Friend has introduced what is virtually an umbrella Measure. Any


national deposits are susceptible to its provisions.
I have great sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Mother-well in his very effective speech. There will undoubtedly be public disquiet at the prospect of mineral development in the south of England—Hampshire, Kent, Dorset and East and West Sussex. There is tremendous pressure on the land in the area by the sheer weight of population density there. The area has a relatively high level of employment, so the unemployment argument is diminished. No one can pretend that my town of Petersfield is a depressed mining town. But the downland and chalk areas are mainly areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are recreation areas of great scenic beauty for large masses of the population. Their ponds, streams and rivers provide recreation, as does the Clyde, for vast numbers of anglers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) spoke of seismographic explorations for oil deposits in his constituency. Some of the side effects are extraordinary. The vibrations travel along the substrata of rock, and a dwelling built over a sub-stratum half a mile away from the explosion can suffer the shock just as violently as it is felt at the centre of the explosion.
I was rather perturbed to hear some slightly pejorative remarks by the hon. Member for Swansea, West on the conservation lobby. The hon. Member for Motherwell was absolutely right: exploitation will follow exploration. As sure as night follows day, the walking drag lines will follow the seismographs. The exploration would not take place except to discover whether subsequent exploitation would show a worthwhile commercial return.
I am perturbed that the names of the seven sponsors of the Bill include only one who conies, slightly tenuously, from the Department of the Environment. We see the names of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. With them, there is only the name of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development, yet this is potentially one of the biggest environmental problems the House has had before it for a long time. It is a quite different matter from the planning permissions necessary for each mining operation. Some exploration activities require no planning permission at all. Heaven help any planning committee suddenly confronted with the news of a substantial oil deposit in one of its areas of outstanding natural beauty! Most of my constituency, happily, is such an area. My right hon. Friends will have to think seriously about the problem that such a situation could create in the South of England. I urge him between now and Report stage to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to concerting their common departmental views on the environmental problems that this Measure could create, not now, not for us, but in 10, 15 or 20 years' time.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I rise briefly, not to introduce a discordant note into this more or less consensus debate, but because I am conscious that the purely economic argument for exploration or industrial activity is the need to find employment and resources, regardless of the natural heritage of our country, which is one of the most precious things we have and which cannot be replaced if it is destroyed.
All my life I have had the pleasure of wandering about the mountainous and wild parts of the country, and I hope I know my country as intimately as most hon. Members. I do not wish to make any reflection on what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) said, but, by inference, he made an aspersion about the conservationist lobby. If I considered that any area of great natural beauty was under threat from ill-advised or capricious industrial development I should always be in the conservationist lobby—

Mr. Alan Williams:: In case my hon. Friend misunderstood me, I ask him to read my words carefully tomorrow. I stressed at every stage the need for adequate safeguards. I said that I did not expect that the results of this Bill would


be those feared by certain spokesmen for the conservationists.

Mr. Price:: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. When we are making such a large amount of Government money available, not only to our own nationals but to foreign nationals, we should be well advised to spell out what we have in mind.
The hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell), who has addressed us so charmingly, referred to her own beautiful part of the country and the apprehensions of the people living there in case there should be the desecration which has occurred in my part of the country, where there are many slag heaps and desolation of a bygone generation of uncontrolled mineral extraction, and where it will take generations to clear away the rubbish left behind.
We have already seen what has happened all over the world with oil exploration. Oil is the most universally demanded product to maintain modern technology and transport, and every nation is trying to stake a claim to oil resources. With geologists and explorers, I have gone round the desert areas in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. In spite of seismographs and explosions underground, every oil company spends at least £1 million on average on each drill that is sunk. Many of those dulls do not yield a drop of oil. The oil companies take the commercial risk of exploration in areas which they cannot spoil, areas of desert.
There has recently been an important reaction in Wales to the prospective activities not of a poverty stricken little company but of the Rio Tinto Zinc Company, a great international concern. The company has made preliminary investigations in a most beautiful part of Wales, the Mawddach Estuary and the mountains east and west of the Estuary, including Cader Idris. This company, which is just as able as the Shell Oil Company to spend £1 million or £10 million on exploration, by the munificence of the Conservative Members of the House, aided by their counterparts in the Labour Party, will be able to go to the Government and get money from them for the most risky and capricious part of their activities, the exploration, before any raw material is produced.
There should be a little brainwashing on this. If the Rio Tinto Company conducts a preliminary exploration of the old gold mine area of these valleys in Merionethshire, and if deposits are found, either of gold or of other rare metals which are often found in association with gold, the Government will pay the bill for the exploration work. If that exploration is followed by exploitation, will the Government claim a share in the profits of that company? I am not satisfied that it is possible to justify the use of Government money raised by public taxation for the private exploitation of wealth if the Government do not have a comparable share in the control of the industry which has been created by the expenditure of that money.
If vast areas of the country are turned into a stone, cement and concrete jungle at the cost of destroying our most beautiful heritage, this will be to the detriment of the happiness of future generations.
The hon. Member for Petersfield spoke about the draglines following the explorer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) inferentially referred to the same point in another way. There is nothing new in this, except that in the modern world of science things happen more quickly and the job is done more efficiently. I know the Peak District of Derbyshire very well since it was my stamping-ground when I was a young man. Many parts of Derbyshire are being defaced not by the extraction of coal but by the search for lead and other base metals, particularly in the Central Derbyshire areas. According to the world price of lead at any given moment, those mines can be shut or opened capriciously depending on the play of the market.
In a situation where Government money is being made available as some kind of basic support cost to the industrialist who wishes to search for metals—which may be for the economic good of the country, but incidentally will also be for the welfare of private company shareholders—I would ask the House to be extremely cautious in widening the powers, even planning powers, for people who are often so powerful behind the scenes.
[MR. PRICE.]
Although facilities are available in the form of public inquiries and protests from people offended by what is being done in defacing the countryside, it is well known that the industrial forces are often controlled by financial machinery, both in this country and internationally, with great pressure being brought to bear on Governments, whether they be Conservative or Labour. The man in the street is often powerless to contest these forces except by going through the motions of public inquiry, which often produces disappointing and negative results.
I hope the House will be well aware of the fact that there are people in this House who will always be willing to stand up and make a reasonable protest against any haphazard, reckless or ill-advised intrusion into areas of our country which ought to be preserved for future generations.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The conservationist argument advanced by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and others overlooks the important fact that without these materials no roads or houses would be built in the United Kingdom. Therefore, one has to try to reconcile some of the problems of devastation of land on the one hand and the construction of roads and buildings on the other hand. The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) has said that conditions must be laid down and, indeed, such matters have been firmly laid down in terms of planning control.
I should like to mention one other matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who said that a blank cheque was being given by the Government. This is not the case. At least 65 per cent. of the money must be found by the company itself and only 35 per cent. will be advanced by the Government. If the mine is subsequently successful, the money will have to be repaid.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House where that is said in the Bill?

Mr. Skeet: If the hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the earlier part of the

Bill—I do not know whether he has read it—he will see in Clause 1(3):
including terms providing for repayment in whole or in part of the amount paid.
I should have thought that would provide sufficient control partly in terms of repayment of the sum and partly in terms of effective planning control.
A few months ago a circular issued by the Department of Trade and Industry stated:
In order to promote the economic development of our mineral resources the Government are ready to consider meeting 35 per cent. of qualifying costs incurred by companies exploring for and evaluating for commercial purposes the deposits of certain minerals in Great Britain. The scheme is confined to non-ferrous metal ores, barium minerals, fluorspar and potash.
That argument has been confirmed today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, and it can be seen that Clause 1(5) states:
In this section 'mineral deposits' includes any natural deposits capable of being lifted or extracted from the earth.
The Minister was right to say that this will be a discretionary matter, but surely a court of law would look at the matter in much broader terms. This will include all sedimentary materials and at a later date it may well include oil and natural gas. I believe there are arguments for saying that these other minerals should now be included.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would not cater for activities which do not require a special stimulus. I should like to ask what is to be the order of priority. Are we to provide some of the non-ferrous materials at a time when commodity prices are falling, or are we to meet the requirements of the market which are essential today to get major roads built in the United Kingdom and also to put up schools and public buildings? Unless we are able to undertake this activity at the right time, taking advantage of the requirements of the market, we shall be in great difficulty. It is well know that heavy sedimentary materials cannot be carried very far and the expense involved in shifting such material is very high. Therefore, if minerals are too highly priced this will be reflected in the final cost of buildings.
There is one other argument which should be borne in mind on the question of sedimentary materials dealt with in


Section 62(2) of the Capital Allowances Act, 1968. A company applying for planning permission must put forward certain geological information. Therefore, if planning permission is refused, all the work which has been undertaken and the money spent on it are rendered futile. When application is made to the income tax authorities to bring Section 62 into effect, the argument then is that the company has not given up the search because at a later date the planing permission might be reversed and it could then go on with the work. There is, however. the prospect that planning permission may not be reversed, and in this age of conservation it is more likely than not that all development wil be completely ruled out. Therefore, there is a growing need to consider sedimentary materials such as sand, gravel, granite and limestone, which are probably less important in terms of our balance of payments but extremely important in respect of the number of structures they create in the United Kingdom which in turn lead to an advancement in our general living standards.
There are two other matters which I wish to mention. What criteria will the Minister exercise in granting these payments? Is the matter to be left to regulation? If conditions are to be laid down, it would be useful for the House to know what they are to be. I believe that these conditions should be specified now or certainly should be stated later in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Minister also said that these provisions will be applicable to the United Kingdom and the Continental shelf as defined by the Continental Shelf Act, 1964. This is interesting because, leaving aside oil, no company is mining on the Continental Shelf other than one corporation, the Marine Mining Corporation, which is mining alluvial tin off the Cornish coast. In 1959 sand and gravel production totalled 92 million cubic yards, 8,744,000 tons of which came from the Continental shelf —about 10 per cent. The 1970 figure was much higher. It must be remembered that work on the Continental shelf is very expensive.
I should like to quote from an article in Hydrospace in October, 1971 entitled, "Undersea Mining of Aggregates". In a section devoted to the North Sea the article stated:

Due to market considerations, the main gravel deposits dredged are in the southern Bight of the North Sea. The southernmost part of the North Sea is bounded by the coasts of England, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.
A large part of this area is in our own sector and this is where money could be most usefully spent. However, we are told by the Minister that money is not to be allocated for this purpose but will be utilised in the chance of finding some extra tin in Cornwall—and I am only too glad to encourage any development in Cornwall—or gold or lead elsewhere in the country which may help our balance of payments, since this may contribute as much as £100 million.
Surely, however, one of the problems is that any proposal involving sand, gravel, lime or limestone could consume a very substantial part of the £25 million which is to be allocated over a period of five years. I ask my hon. Friend again, what is the purpose of including the Continental Shelf when no work is going on there at present, apart from sand and gravel, and when it is said specifically that the oil industry is to be left outside the terms of the Bill?
One other important matter concerns mineral rights to which I referred in the debate on the Address. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations today. He said that there is a non-consensus here since this matter has not been adequately discussed with mineral undertakers and with the owners of mineral property. However, as I understand it, there is more of a consensus here than my hon. Friend envisages, and it may be appropriate to mention that when the Bill reaches its Committee stage, it will be my desire and, I hope, that of the hon. Member for Swansea, West to move an Amendment to include such a Clause in the Bill. This can be done very simply and, in my view, it would be advantageous to get matters right from the start.
I want now to refer to one very serious problem. It is that sedimentary materials are very badly treated. A number of non-ferrous metals are highly regarded and were put in a privileged position under earlier Acts of Parliament dating back to 1923 and the consolidating Act of 1966. Reserves of clay and so on are running out for many companies, to the extent that they may have to lay off labour. Others are looking ahead and


trying to get additional reserves. In doing so, they are running into difficulties. One problem is the limitation imposed on planning permission under the Town and Country (Mineral) Regulations, 1971, which for minerals is only 10 years. Another problem is the absence of coherent legislation on mineral rights. These difficulties are leading to a serious lack of reserves sufficient to support expensive plant and to meet the requirements of the market.
They are problems which have been brought about in several ways. The first is the inability to persuade the owners of mineral properties to grant mineral rights to applicants except at exorbitant prices. The outcome is that the person at the end of the list has to pay an exorbitant price for building materials, which cannot be in the public interest. The other is the inability to persuade local planning authorities of the need to amend development plans so that land may be used for
the winning and working of minerals
as required by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, and all the Statutory Instruments made under it.
Many applications, with the procedural requirements involved, take up to three years to be granted. Often there may be a complete block. It may be that a mine or quarry has reserves of two or three years, and most companies will be reaching the end of their normal existence if they cannot get reserves in time. Certain planning authorities do not wish to grant applications, with the result that one sees the collapse of certain industries.
Another difficulty facing sedimentary materials is the inability to cope with a condition, imposed by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Acts, 1923 to 1966, that an
applicant has an interest in the minerals or minerals adjacent thereto".
A happy answer would be to delete this condition, and it could be done by bringing in a modification which I hope to advance later and by repealing the town and country planning provisions of the 1962 Act.
Having said all that, I must congratulate the Government on making this money available, and they are to be encouraged. My hon. Friend imagines

that he will induce a number of overseas operators to come to the United Kingdom simply because he holds out the bait of £25 million over five years. I do not think that that will be a great inducement. After all, an operator will first have to register a company here. He will receive only a very small part of the £5 million a year which is to be allocated. It will not be much of an inducement when it is set beside the tax concessions and cash grants offered by other countries. An operator will have all the difficulties with local planning authorities, and all the difficulties of public inquiries to surmount. We have the case of a potash company in the North run by I.C.I. and Chartered Consolidated which has had impossible conditions imposed on a pipeline which it proposed to build out to sea. If it is found that it adds to the pollution of the sea by adding salt to it. the operation must cease and all the money invested will go down the drain.
When we talk about non-ferrous metals or sedimentary materials, we must have a new approach. The sum proposed by the Government is insufficient for requirements. When considering these matters, one has to look at market conditions and at what is required by the State at present. The State requires granite, stone and other materials for building roads, schools and homes, Unless these construction materials come on to the market, the country will be in constant difficulty.
I ought perhaps to have said earlier that I have an interest in this matter. However, I think that I have discussed it on previous occasions.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I wish to begin by commenting briefly on the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He made the very fair point that we badly need building materials. Those of us who live in the northern part of the country see fine motorways driving through the countryside, for which more and more construction materials are required, yet we have to live in close proximity to spoil heaps, relics of the Industrial Revolution and of the dying coal industry. It is a curious anomaly when one considers that whenever subsoil is needed for motorway construction, all too often planning permission is given to extract materials from


good agricultural land. I fully accept that not all materials in spoil heaps are suitable for this purpose, and that there are certain rating difficulties in using spoil heap materials. The fact remains that, to people living amidst spoil heaps, it seems that this is so much administrative hoo-ha.

Mr. Skeet: Has the hon. Gentleman considered a third item, which is the transport costs involved? There may be good reasons why a slagheap should be used if it contains slate, material suitable for hard-core, and so on. But if it has to be transported over long distances, it is not appropriate for the job that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Clark: I accept that. However, in many parts of the country spoil heaps are in such close proximity to projected motorways that that argument does not have validity.
I want to take a little further the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), both of whom referred to difficulties and dangers to the environment. They ask what is to happen after the exploration. I live in and represent a constituency in a part of the country which takes in a section of the Peak District National Park and some of the Yorkshire coalfield. I am perhaps more conscious than most of the dangers involved, and I want to put forward one or two points arising from this difficulty.
Government money is to be made available for the exploration of mineral wealth. I accept the need to balance economic requirements with environmental factors. However, I am worried constantly by the thought that more attention will be paid to economic arguments than to environmental reasons. I find this point particularly worrying because, once Government money has been given for exploration, it may be used as a reason to pressurise local authorities into giving planning permission.
I should like to cite an example from a slightly different sphere. Earlier this summer the Denby Dale Urban District Council, which lies at one end of my constituency, received a letter from mining experts, Mackenzie, Lehane and Shand, asking for planning permission to

excavate four sites in the urban district. They stated in their letter that they were acting with the full knowledge of the National Coal Board. Certain of the local councillors read the letter and were of the opinion, "Because the National Coal Board is backing them, because they have Government support, perhaps we should accede to planning permission". But the majority of councillors did not accept that interpretation. And a good job, too. When I took up the matter with the National Coal Board I was informed that it had never heard of this planning application. This private firm, which was out to exploit the resources of private property, was using the good name of the National Coal Board to try to further its own case. This is a danger which could arise from the type of power which is being given in the Bill.
There is another danger. We are constantly finding that in the same area we have what the hon. Member for Bedford calls sedimentary materials. We have a great deal of clay. We make bricks. We need the bricks. We also make pipes, and so on. I have no grumble about the excavation of clay, nor have the local councillors. Some of the local firms come in and do a tremendous job. They extract the clay and put the land back. It is a superb operation. What worries me is that some firms, not all, get, planning, permission to extract the and, having, extracted the clay, then go beyond, the planning permission and extract further pieces of land. This has happened on numerous occasions. They then go to the West Riding County Council, the planning authority, and say, "We have taken over another two or three acres. Will you give us retrospective planning permission?" They do this time and again. One has sympathy for the West Riding County Council. But what else can it do? There is a huge hole in the ground. It is a fait accompli. The council can hardly persuade the company to go back and fill it in. Obviously in law it could, but in practice it is a difficult problem.
This is why so many people feel very wary when they see encouragement being given to mineral exploration. It is not so much that they oppose it in principle; it is that they are concerned about the practical operations of particular


endeavours. It is for this reason that, really as the voice of caution, I intervene briefly to point out what could possibly happen after the exploration if it was felt that the subsequent excavation and exploitation had the support of the official bodies.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. David Mudd: In an endeavour to be brief I shall not take up many of the valid points which have been made by previous speakers, beyond expressing my regret that there seems to have been a certain inevitability in many speeches that so-called exploitation automatically follows exploration. I reject the word "exploitation". It is an emotive and inaccurate word. The correct word is "development". But it is not inevitable that development of a prospect should follow exploration. Indeed, in Cornwall possibly the most dangerous industry of all to the environment is the tin industry. Yet, despite great exploration, only one project has so far reached the stage of development. Indeed, in terms of environmental responsibility, the landscaping of this particular project is a masterpiece and a credit to industrial thought and responsibility.
Having the honour to represent the Cornish constituency in which is to be found both the cradle and the heart of our great traditional tin-mining industry, I cannot but congratulate the Government on this vital Bill and wish the legislation speedy enactment both in its application towards assisting our balance of payments and with respect to the additional employment which it must surely generate.
But here, regretfully, my eulogy must end, for it is my contention that the Bill is totally out of sequence in the order of priorities for answering the legitimate demands of the mineral industry. The Bill may, and indeed does, offer generous financial means, but means in themselves are useless in this context without the associated legalised ways. Here we have the enigma, to which I direct the attention of the Minister, for it is indeed an enigma, on the one hand, to be given, money to make exploration possible while, on the other hand, continuing to be denied legal powers to make exploration possible. It is about as logical as

burying £25 million in Hyde Park, saying that it is for the use of the public, and then promptly passing an order banning the use of shovels and forbidding the disturbance of grass in a public place.
Let me further try to explain my submission that mineral rights legislation must be either a prelude to or run parallel with the expansion of exploratory financial assistance. For without concurrent legislation, it is possible and, indeed, probable that the take-up of monies made available and subsequent development will be both low and sluggish after the initial demand.
We accept that minerals are a basic raw material and that a free flow of minerals to British industry is vital to the economy and to sustained and growing employment throughout industry. Minerals, however, can be worked only as and where they occur and can be located. If a known occurrence is sterilised it may not be possible to find an alternative at an economic price; thus, natural resources are wasted.
Again, we know and accept that planning controls are becoming tighter, with the result that the number of deposits available for working which would be environmentally acceptable are being gradually reduced. This makes it even more important that deposits in environmentally non-contentious areas should not be sterilised in any way.
A mineral deposit, as has been explained by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), is often split into several ownerships. At present we have a situation where one greedy or uncooperative owner can totally sterilise or prejudice the development of the whole deposit although perhaps being the owner of only a minimal, but crucial. area.
Let me give some definite examples of the type of situation which is arising throughout the West Country. A clay company wishes to obtain rights over 40 acres of land in Cornwall. The owner refuses to grant a lease and demands nothing less than the purchase of a very poor agricultural holding. The realistic price of that holding is £35,000, excluding mineral values. He is demanding £150,000, which is exactly three times the total value of the holding and mineral rights.
In Devon another company wishes to acquire 16 acres of stone-bearing land


for limestone workings. Neighbouring land has been sold to the company at £950 an acre. The owner in question is demanding between £4,000 and £5,000 per acre in the knowledge that his 16 acres form the key triangle between two adjoining developments and that inability to purchase will completely sterilise the project.
In Devon a major gravel project, which would provide increased employment and improve local prosperity, may have to be abandoned as a minority land holder, who is totally opposed to mineral workings under any circumstances, refuses to sell or lease the land at any price.
In Cornwall up to a dozen promising mineral sites remain sterilised due to the difficulties in tracing mineral owners, and due to various technical and legal matters which ought never to be allowed to hold up mineral exploration. All too frequently the would-be explorer or developer finds himself confronted by some bloody-minded solicitor or land agent who is a darned sight more obstructive than the principal whom he is supposed to be representing.
It is common knowledge in Cornish mining circles that there is one wealthy landowner who demands, and gets, a prince's ransom whenever he sees fit to grant mineral rights, and it is my genuine fear that the legislation which we are debating today will, in the absence of mineral rights legislation, do little more than, through the availability of exploration grants, enable him, and owners like him, to get a still higher premium for their rights, with the result that money which should benefit the industry will go instead to already overfilled private pockets.
May I, therefore, ask my hon. Friend when he replies to the debate to answer four specific questions. First, what is the anticipated annual take-up rate of these grants, spread over each of the first five years? Second, what safeguards will exist to make sure that the grants are applied to exploration, and not to paying higher premiums to landowners? Third, will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the possibility of accelerating the bringing forward of mineral rights legislation? Fourth, if it is not possible to include such legislation in the 1971-72 Session, will he consider a simple Amendment

to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1966, to make paragraph 1 of the Table of that Act applicable to all minerals?
On a personal note, I recall my joy when on that glorious October day about six weeks ago Wheal Jame came into production. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry proudly proclaimed, and we cheered him, "Cousin Jack is back". I suggest to the Minister that we now utilise our joint energies and joint attitudes to keep Cousin Jack back in mining, to draw his family back as well and, above all, to give him and his family increasing and secure employment now that at long last he is back.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I propose to intervene only briefly, chiefly to follow an intervention which I made earlier during the Minister's speech.
I join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in welcoming the conversion of the Government, which is shown by the provisions of the Bill, to the necessity for Government intervention in dealing with problems of this kind. We are anxious that this should be taken much further and should be seen as a step towards the restoration of investment grants which we so badly need, particularly in our development areas.
I share the anxieties which have been expressed this evening, from both tides of the House, about the possible effects of exploration and, later, development, particularly in areas of which we are especially proud. As one who has been concerned for many years with the development of our national parks and the whole campaign for their establishment, I am disturbed about the way in which some of our national parks appear almost to have become invitations for development, and particularly invitations for this kind of mineral development.
We are naturally all the more anxious because of recent proposals for exploration in North Wales and the Snowdonia National Park. That is happening in other national park areas, too. Indeed, there is hardly any national park which has not been subjected to this kind of development.
Proposals for development in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park led to


protracted public inquiries which ended with the potash development being approved, subject to strict controls. One development was approved in the northern part of the North Yorkshire Moors, in which I.C.I. was involved, and, unhappily, two other applications were approved further south in the national park area.
The extraordinary situation has arisen that the companies concerned have said that after reconsideration of the international trade position they consider it unlikely that they will go forward with those projects, at any rate at present. That argument was raised by many objectors at the time of the inquiry and I regret that my right hon. Friend who was then at the Department approved those applications.
It is a matter of real concern to many of us that nearly all the areas which were specifically selected as being important to the country because of their scenic beauty should prove to be the areas which almost inevitably attract major industrial and defence developments of one sort or another. I regret that there is not present on the Treasury Bench a Minister from the Department of the Environment who is responsible for this part of the problem and who has the responsibility of trying to ensure that these heritages are fully protected. I am putting in a warning at this stage. Many of us believe that the powers now available for the protection of national park areas have proved to be inadequate. The powers of the Countryside Commission and those proposed by the Government must be shown to be really effective. That has not been the case so far.
It is almost impossible to weigh the long-term heritage value of areas of that sort to the country and to visitors to it against the potential economic value of the development of whatever material we may be considering. One realises that there has to be a balance but, alas, it is still true that the balance is almost inevitably weighted, in each major case that arises, in favour of the economic development even though, as our experience has shown, that decision may often be proved to be based upon utterly inadequate information.
We welcome the general principle of the Government's proposals but we hope

that the Minister, when he replies, will at least indicate that there will be still further examination of the possibility of tightening up the protection of the areas about which we are particularly concerned, for the sake of the enjoyment which they are intended to provide.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I should like to add a few halting words on Clause 1. As they will be almost entirely critical, I should like to begin by saying that I warmly support the Bill. This is what one calls consensus legislation. When my hon. Friend the Minister uses a word like "exciting" and the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) uses words like "purposeful" and "meaningful", it is clearly necessary for the tribunes of the people to be on the alert about what is being done.
Strictly, the Bill is concerned only with exploration. We have heard a lot about exploitation, some of which rather alarms me. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he thought there would be a 10-year gap between the initiation of any legislation and any practical results. I was alarmed by the conclusions of the hon. Member for Swansea, West in regard to what he thought was the ultimate profit of these operations. He invited us to view the general economic scene in terms of gross national product, balance of payments, increases of income and so on. He appeared to leave out the most relevant item: what we might lose by these operations, which, of course, is our minerals.
I suggest respectfully to the House that it is time that we tried to enter a new era of economic thinking and thought about our resources in terms of what we need to conserve—not in the sense in which conservation has been talked about today, but in the sense of preserving our capital assets.
When hon. Members deplore the fact that we are spending £600 million on importing minerals, I think I am sorry that we are not spending £700 million. It is far better to import them and keep some reserves in our own country for as long as we can. These are irrelevant thoughts which it would be nice to develop at another time.
There is a nearby area where some of these things might easily be put to the test—that is, in the Republic of


Ireland. About 10 years ago, some bright Canadians discovered, on the eastern side of the Galway Blazers country, underneath one of the bogs which exist in those parts, an unsuspected deposit of lead. This has since been worked in a big way. The same is now being done in the Tipperary country and in the northern part of the Meath country. In all these enterprises, it would be easy to assess what the Irish public have gained in financial terms and in employment and what they have lost in terms of mineral reserves.
I move to the specific object of the Bill—exploration. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am, in a small way, a mineral owner, although everything that I am saying appears to be contrary to my interests.
I was rather concerned to see, in a very small Press item this morning, which my hon. Friend the Minister may have seen, a little report from "Our Environment Reporter" that the executive of the Council for the Protection of Rural England had decided not to give evidence to the Zuckerman Commission on mining and the environment. That seemed to me a bad augury for the coming together of people who should come together on this issue.
The importance of the Bill, and the reason why I support it, is surely that it gives us the possibility of making an assessment of the country's resources. That must be valuable. I repeat that having assessed them, we do not necessarily want to dissipate them. It would not be very sensible to improve our balance of payments by cutting down all our trees and exporting them.
I do not know whether any other hon. Member has referred to this point, but it would be of value to the country if, in the process of making use of public funds which the Government have allocated, we pay attention to improving our know-how. I am referring now to the science of geophysics. I speak with deference on a technical matter, but this science has been developed in a big way in countries tike the United States and Canada. It has made a small start in this country, but only a small one.
Might it be possible, as part of this operation, to see that some or all of the exploration envisaged is done by English professional firms engaged in this line of

business? Quite apart from making an assessment of our resources, it must be for the long-term benefit that we should build up in this profession a large body of know-how both in the means of discovery and in the knowledge of where our riches lie.

6.35 p.m.

Sir J. Eden:: With leave of the House, I will try briefly to reply to some of the points made in this very interesting and, for me, very helpful debate.
I was in substantial agreement with the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) but the second part did not really seem to fulfil the hopes that it had encouraged in me. I shall come later to some of his substantial points, but first I should like to refer to one or two separate matters. The hon. Member asked me about the extension or retention of consents, which originally came up in discussion of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations in May this year.
I will certainly bring the hon. Member's remarks to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development. The hon. Member will, however, recollect that towards the conclusion of his speech my hon. Friend said that he would look into the matter in the spirit of moving towards the object that I understood the hon. Gentleman himself had in mind, of trying
to get a settlement as early as possible for the mineral undertakers on the renewal of their planning permissions and to see whether we can sort out the matter on that basis.
The hon. Gentleman will recollect that he then said:
May I thank the Minister for that concession?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1332.]
It is possible that I have misunderstood the point that the hon. Gentleman was making tonight, but whether I have or not, I will in any case ensure that my hon. Friend takes note of what he has said on this matter.

Mr. Alan Williams: I think that the Minister has misunderstood. On that occasion, as on this, I waived the right of reply in order to allow more back benchers to participate in the debate. I
[MR. WILLIAMS.]
was thanking the Minister for his early concession that he would be willing to look again at the proposals which I put then and which I have put again today. 1 am afraid that the spirit of goodwill which he felt as he left here dissipated rapidly when he got back to the Housing Department.

Sir J. Eden: I see. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that my hon. Friend was still looking at the matter in the spirit in which he said he would.
In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I confirm, of course, that any step to move towards the second tranche of the £50 million will be subject to an affirmative Resolution.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about drilling rigs. I am informed that they will be included under Clause 2(b) if they take the form of ships but not if they are static platforms. Several drilling rigs take the form of ships—and "ship", for the purposes of the Bill, includes any vessel used for navigation.
In mentioning investment grants, hon. Members have misunderstood the very major and essential differences between investment grants and the Bill's proposals. First, the provisions in the Bill are comprised in the form of aid which is to be given only to programmes approved in advance; second, this aid will be given only to a small element—that is, exploration and evaluation, of a mining company's total capital outlay on a project; third, where a project is successful, the Government's contribution will be repayable together with interest—which answers the point put by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price); fourth, the scheme will be applied to a specific and limited range of minerals; fifth, there is no regional differentiation; and sixth, there is a limit on total Government expenditure under the scheme. These are substantial differences which I am sure the hon. Member for Swansea. West will recognise.

Mr. Alan Williams: Again, the Minister misses the point. The fact which I was endeavouring to establish was that when dealing with firms of low profitability and high risk, as stated in

the letter from the Department, the grant system had to be used because the allowance system was not able to provide the required incentive.

Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman refers to "low profitability". He should also recognise that we are dealing with firms with no eligible profits simply because many of these are firms whose principal trading takes place overseas. They are not, therefore, in a position to have eligible profits in this country, and that is why the scheme has been devised in this way.
It should also be recognised that we are in every sense competing with the special provisions which are made in other countries. These are stimuli directed towards the special circumstances of the mineral industry and, this being an international industry, firms tend to go to those areas not only where they are likely to find resources to exploit but where the inducements to exploit are most encouraging, and it is to match these that we must make these special measures available.
The hon. Member for West Derby asked about the position of Northern Ireland. He will be aware that Northern Ireland is responsible for its own legislation in this matter. We must recognise, first, that there are these essential differences and, secondly, that we are competing against real inducements in other countries.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: is my hon. Friend saying that in the case of all successful schemes the Government grant will not be repayable, however large the company?

Sir J. Eden: The money will be repayable in circumstances where the assistance advanced during the course of exploration leads to the successful extraction of minerals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bed-ford (Mr. Skeet) asked me about the Continental Shelf. This is included in the scheme because of the evidence we have of considerable interest in the possibility of the extraction of these minerals from the sea bed. As he knows only too well, there are many difficult technical problems. These still remain to be solved before economic extraction can be envisaged. However, it is right


to judge that the possibilities are sufficiently good to justify including exploration of the Continental Shelf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bed-ford and others asked about the position of sedimentary minerals and why these, as well as other minerals, were not included in the scheme. The object of the scheme is to be a stimulus to exploration where there is evidence that such stimulus does not now exist. There is clear evidence that it does not exist in respect of non-ferrous metals.

Mr. Skeet: rose—

Sir J. Eden: I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I am speaking, with some diffidence, for a second time. I have no doubt that we shall have an interesting Committee stage and I anticipate that many of these points will be debated then.
We must remember that the risks encountered in metalliferous mining and exploration are very different from the sort of risks encountered in sand and gravel extraction, in which a substantial trade is already taking place of the order of some £200 million a year. On the other hand, the comparable figure for non-ferrous metals is only about £3 million. When one compares £200 million with £3 million one recognises immediately the degree of imbalance which exists. If we can rectify this it will be worth doing in our overall national interest and this is what we are trying to achieve both through the Bill and by the scheme I have announced.
A more detailed point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) and others. They asked whether I could give any information about the phasing of expenditure which is likely to take place during the five-year period. I can- not be specific about this. Hon. Members will recognise that this obviously depends on the rate of application. However, I can say that the amount of assistance already applied for is just under £million. I expect this to build up rather slowly in the initial stages but I think it will gather momentum later. In any event, the costs incurred in the earlier stages of exploration are comparatively lower than those incurred in subsequent stages.
I should emphasise that we are not paying and do not intend to pay con-

tributions towards the acquisition of mineral rights. Assistance will be governed by safeguards written into the terms under which money will be made available for the purpose of exploration.
I said that we were looking carefully at the question of legislation for mineral rights, about which I was questioned by the hon. Member for Swansea, West and several other hon. Members. I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said on this score, and he well illustrated both the complexity of the matter and some of the problems that are likely to arise. Although my hon. Friend spoke with great eloquence and feeling on the matter, he will recognise that there are many who take a totally opposite view and who can speak with as much feeling and, no doubt, with similar eloquence.
To sum up the purpose of the Bill, it is to stimulate exploration in this important area of non-ferrous metals, of which we believe there is a considerable abundance in this country. The fact that some of them exist in national parks is not directly relevant to our consideration of this Measure. What we need to know is the extent of our resources. I am sure it is right that we should find out whether these resources exist in our national parks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) spoke movingly about the areas of outstanding beauty, as did the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) in an interesting speech. I found myself in considerable sympathy with many of the points they made. These we must weigh in the balance as the nature of the resources and their value become known. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) in this connection.
It may be that we will decide that the value we attach to certain areas of beauty will outweigh the value of their available minerals and their development. It is for this purpose that the planning procedures are established and will be enforced. I shall certainly examine the points that have been made in this regard to see whether there are any other safeguards which could be written into the Bill to meet the views of the House in this respect.


I have noted the special references to the Countryside Commission. As hon. Members know, we are under an obligation in the light of the Countryside Act to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside. That is an obligation resting upon every Minister, not least a Minister for Industry. So far as it is possible to discharge one's responsibilities in both of these apparently competing directions, I shall do so. It is a matter of balance, but before we can achieve the right balance we must do so on the widest knowledge we are able to acquire both of the location and of the extent of our mineral resources.

Mr. Laurance Reed:: But should not those decisions be taken by a body independent of the Minister, bearing in mind the pressures on him? Will he not consider submitting these schemes to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, for an environmental impact report?

Sir J. Eden: My hon. Friend is the expert and knows the extent to which the established planning procedures allow for independence of judgment and view. He knows that the environment is very carefully safeguarded and protected.
As I have said, I shall take careful note of the points made in the debate in that regard and consider whether it is possible to make provision in relation to consultation. It might not be possible. I am not trying to confuse or to mislead the House. I shall genuinely consider the position, because I greatly sympathise with the views that have been expressed.
We must achieve a balance, but I am equally confident that we should know the full extent of the potential natural wealth of these islands and that we ought to encourage exploration in order to do so. I believe that this scheme would be a sound investment of the public

money allocated through the means of the Bill, to which I invite the House to give a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

MINERAL EXPLORATION, ETC. [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the giving of financial assistance in connection with mineral exploration, and to clarify or extend certain exceptions from the abolition of investment grants, it is expedient to authorize—

the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, up to a total of £50,000,000, of contributions by the Secretary of State towards expenditure incurred on mineral exploration (including the evaluation of mineral deposits) in Great Britain and certain sea areas, and the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by him by way of repayment of any such contribution, with or without interest or an addition in lieu of interest; and
—any such increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, or payable into the Consolidated Fund, under section 30 of the Industrial Development Act 1966 as may result from extending in either of the following ways the cases in which investment grants may continue to be paid, that is to say,—

in the case of grants under section 4(2) (hired assets), from modifying the requirement in section 4(2)(a)(ii) that the person to whom the asset has been hired out could, on certain assumptions, have had a grant made to him; and
in the case of grants under section 5 (ships), from modifying section 1(4) of the Investment and Building Grants Act 1971 so that a person is treated as entitled to the benefit of a contract for the construction of a new ship if he is entitled subject to the rights of an assignee by way only of security.—[Sir J. Eden.]

SOUTHERN RHODESIA

6.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move,
That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to continue in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965. This Act gives Her Majesty in Council power to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with the situation in Southern Rhodesia brought about by the illegal declaration of independence.
Against that background it has been the purpose of successive Governments to reach an agreement with Mr. Smith on the basis of the five principles. If the "Test of Acceptability" under the fifth principle showed that the people of Rhodesia as a whole found the agreement acceptable, Parliament would be asked to approve an independence Act and legality would be restored. This would pave the way to the dropping of sanctions, when the necessary legislation had been passed in the Rhodesian and United Kingdom Parliaments.
The last Government attempted to reach such an agreement on two occasions. As we promised in our election manifesto, this Government are making a further attempt to reach such an agreement. We would have failed in our duty if we had not done so. As I told the House yesterday, we have now reached a stage where substantive negotiations can start, and I plan to visit Salisbury shortly.
There will be some who have been disappointed at the time which it has taken to reach this stage. It has indeed been a slow business. But I am sure that we were right not to rush the matter. It is far better to reach the right agreement—if this can be done—slowly than to fail through undue haste.
These are complex matters, and we have had to deal with a situation in which the Rhodesians are operating from a constitution which has different racial rolls and stops at parity of representation. It was clear, therefore, that much discussion and adaptation would have to take

place before we could arrive at a solution acceptable to this Parliament. It has to be accepted by the House.
In the course of this year the gap between the two sides has been much reduced. But there are still some crucial problems which I do not think the emissaries can take any further, and therefore I must go to see whether they can be resolved. I shall try to resolve them in Salisbury.
Success cannot be guaranteed, but failure would be a tragedy—a tragedy for all Rhodesians, European and African alike, for there is little joy for any Rhodesian in the indefinite postponement of the investment and growth on which the economic prosperity of all depends, and very little joy, either, in becoming, in effect, a permanent dependency of South Africa, which would be the fate of Rhodesia if agreement were not reached.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition put this matter aptly in perspective on 21st January, 1969, when he talked about
the drift to apartheid… which may be one consequence of no settlement being reached, unemployment and the danger of a blood bath in that area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 249.]
—perhaps a little over-dramatised—which is the right hon. Gentleman's way sometimes—but nevertheless uncomfortably near the truth. That would be a bleak prospect when Rhodesia can so clearly have a fine prospect as a nation in her own right.
It has always been the policy of this Government that while negotiations were proceeding both sides should retain their positions. That means that sanctions remain in force while we see whether agreement is possible. I shall no doubt be asked what our attitude to sanctions will be if the negotiations fail. My answer must be the same as that which I gave some time ago: I do not go into negotiations contemplating failure. If one does, one has lost sight of the goal from the start. We on this side of the House have never accepted the need for involvement of the United Nations in this essentially domestic problem, but mandatory sanctions were imposed, and we have to accept them as a fact of life.
An agreement with Mr. Smith on the basis of the five principles would bring
[SIR A. DOUGLAS-HOME.]
this melancholy chapter to a close. It is to this aim that we are devoting our energies. I therefore ask the House to support the Motion, so that I can go to Salisbury with the best hope of reaching an honourable settlement which will end the bitterness and start a new era for that country, in which Europeans and Africans alike can prosper; in which they can find harmonious living, and live at peace with their neighbours in Africa and with the whole world outside.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Denis Healey: I think that the House was well aware, yesterday, that the Foreign Secretary's decision to announce an early visit to Rhodesia had a double purpose. There is no doubt that it will succeed in its immediate purpose, which is to secure a renewal of sanctions tonight and to avert or reduce to the minimum any opposition to this move from his own benches— [Interruption.] I have a little sympathy for the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), perhaps not for reasons that he would appreciate.
The Prime Minister himself—and the right hon. Gentleman, I believe, tonight— has made it very clear that it is essential that sanctions should continue unless a settlement is reached. According to the Observer newspaper, the Prime Minister gave a firm pledge on this when speaking the other day in Edinburgh to a meeting of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association. He said that Mr. Smith
… has always maintained his is an independent country. We have not accepted this and said that sanctions would remain until a settlement is reached which we can put before Parliament as an honourable settlement.
In other words, if these negotiations do not succeed, sanctions will remain, and while I understand the Foreign Secretary's unwillingness to come clean on that to-night there was no doubt of the meaning of his words when he said that although the Government, as we know, never agreed with the previous Government's decision to put the matter in the United Nations they accept the United Nations mandatory resolution on sanctions. This must be well understood by Salisbury or the negotiations which the right hon. Gentleman is about to undertake have very little chance of success.
There are three obvious reasons why sanctions must be maintained until and unless a satisfactory solution is reached on the basis of the five principles. First of all, as the Foreign Secretary made very clear, sanctions are imposing real penalties on those responsible for a breach of their oath to the Crown and for the unilateral declaration of independence.
There is already a serious shortage of foreign exchange and capital in Rhodesia. The British population is leaving Rhodesia, and is being replaced by Greeks, Portuguese and Afrikaners. Even so, there is a steady increase in the percentage of the population which is African rather than European. In the last six years, the proportion of Africans to Europeans has risen from 19 to 1 to 22 to 1. The fact is that there is no future for the Europeans in Rhodesia if the unilateral declaration of independence remains in force, and this must be well understood.
The second reason is, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, that the maintenance of sanctions is a vital bargaining card. The most important carrot he can offer the Smith rÉgime in his negotiations is to promise to end sanctions provided a satisfactory settlement is reached. But this negotiating card exists only so long as the House renews sanctions tonight, and the Foreign Secretary makes it clear that sanctions will be maintained until and unless a satisfactory resolution of the problem is reached.
There is a third reason for renewing sanctions and maintaining them, short of a settlement, and that is that although they are costly to the United Kingdom— and a figure of £40 million a year has been mentioned—there is no doubt that it would be far more costly in material and financial terms for Britain to throw away what good will she still has in black Africa and the Third World by selling out to the Smith rÉgime and abandoning sanctions without a satisfactory settlement.
I believe that the Foreign Secretary is as well aware of these facts as I am, though I am not surprised that he should have chosen to introduce his request to the House to renew sanctions with a speech which was exiguous, to say the least, in relation to the magnitude of the issues at stake. Still, if the right hon. Gentleman's visit helps him tonight to


obtain the renewal of sanctions it will have succeeded in its immediate purpose, and this is something worthwhile.
But the Foreign Secretary's visit has another purpose, and that is to achieve a settlement which is based on the five principles—and I believe he added yesterday, "something more". I was glad that he yesterday rejected the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) that he should not interpret the principles too rigidly because it was more important to get a settlement than to keep his word.
One can be far less happy about the right hon. Gentleman's decision to visit Salisbury in these circumstances and at this time, because he insisted until yesterday that the officials of the two sides should have already mapped out the foundations for an agreement before the principals became directly involved. That was a wise decision. There is no doubt, as reported in many newspapers this morning, that his decision to visit Salisbury at a moment when there are major issues completely unresolved in the official talks is regarded there as a tactical victory for Smith. This is reported in The Times and the Daily Telegraph this morning.
I do not envy the right hon. Gentleman his task in going into these talks in Salisbury in a few days' time, trying to resolve quite major issues which have so far not been resolved in a series of meetings between very able officials on both sides, because to negotiate with Smith on the termination of the unilateral declaration of independence has been found by many Ministers in the past to be like trying to pick up mercury with knitting needles.
I regret having to say it, but I think it a pity that he has chosen the Attorney-General to accompany him on his visit— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell the House why. It is because the Attorney-General on 27th January, 1966, declared that

"… the 'nonsense' of sanctions should be dropped"—

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Mr. Healey: and the Smith government recognised as the lawful government of Rhodesia.

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Loyalty to the Crown! Look at that shower.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Why should I submit, Mr. Speaker, to being called a shower by that creature over there? On a point of order, is "shower" now regarded as correct parliamentary terminology?

Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) were allowed to pursue his speech in peace and quiet.

Sir G. Nabarro:: But may I have an answer to this question, Mr. Speaker: is "shower" a parliamentary expression?

Mr. Speaker: In the proper context, of course.

Sir G. Nabarro: But I submit to you, Sir, that "shower" was not used in its proper context, but as an opprobrious term.

Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a matter for me, not for the hon. Member. Mr. Healey.

Mr. Healey:: I forbear to pursue the question of moisture with regard to hon. Members opposite, but I will not forbear to point out that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members opposite clearly disagree with the policy of their own Government in this matter, and it is well that the House, the country and the world should take note of it.
It is a serious matter that the Attorney-General, who is the only other Ministerial member of the Foreign Secretary's team, should have gone on record as opposing the whole of Her Majesty's Government's present policy on sanctions and, indeed, towards the Smith rÉgime in general.
There is one great advantage in the Foreign Secretary's visit and that is that no one can doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman, who is greatly respected in Rhodesia as well as in this country, fails to reach an agreement on what he regards as honourable terms, then no agreement can be reached, and hon. Members opposite will have to decide whether they support a dishonourable agreement, or are prepared to bite on the bullet and maintain a policy which successive Governments have followed for the last six years.


It is well that the House should understand precisely what acceptance of the five principles means. It means, first of all, that the Prime Minister—so called —of Rhodesia will have to go back on everything he has said over the last six years about the five principles, because he has rejected them both in theory and in practice. In the middle of this present set of negotiations, in June this year, he said publicly in a television interview:
I don't believe in any of the principles.

When the principles were first enunciated six years ago—the Foreign Secretary had a major part in defining them—they already required the Rhodesian Government at that time to undo many of the things they had been doing over recent years. But since 1965, in the last six years, the Rhodesian regime has been moving with increasing speed in the opposite direction. I was glad that tonight the Foreign Secretary pointed out that Rhodesia is engaged in a "drift to apartheid" and that he endorsed the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in this regard, because this is clearly so, and the concessions which Smith would have to make to meet the five principles now are infinitely greater than those he would have had to make when they were first announced.
Let us consider the first principle, unimpeded progress towards majority rule, and the third principle, an immediate improvement in the political status of the Africans. The 1969 constitution is totally, fundamentally incompatible with both these principles. and no one has stated this more clearly than the Foreign Secretary, who said:
'… there is no question that our Parliament or anybody in this country could be a partner in such an enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 623.]
He was speaking then of the constitution before it was brought into force and concentrating particularly on Smith's intention—now carried out—to introduce two separate rolls with no common roll in perpetuity.
The fact is—and Smith has confirmed this—that at present rates of relative growth it would take the Africans 230 years to reach their existing quota of seats and 500 years to achieve parity with the Europeans, and they can never be allowed more than parity under the constitution.

the clauses of which, incidentally, are heavily entrenched. It is quite clear that so long as the 1969 constitution remains in force it is impossible to claim that the five principles are being observed and that any settlement which may be considered will be consistent with the five principles.
The most important single matter—I understand from Press leaks from a Conservative meeting last night that this has been under consideration by the Government—is to produce a single roll and get rid of the income qualification. But I regret that the arguments so far at the official level have been about the nature of the obstacles to African representation, because unimpeded progress towards majority rule should mean removing obstacles and not choosing the most acceptable obstacles. I hope very much that the Minister of State will give us some idea of the Government's intentions in this regard.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman sincerely wishes well to my right hon. Friend in his trip to Salisbury and believes, as I do, that he is a man of honour and will not return with a sell out, is he being helpful tonight?

Mr. Healey: There is no one whom the Foreign Secretary will meet in Salisbury, on either side of the argument, African or European, politician or churchman, who does not know that everything I am now saying is both true and totally relevant to the negotiations. To attempt to disguise the importance of the concessions Smith must make is to do a disservice to the Foreign Secretary.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Healey:: No. With great respect, at the moment I find myself in a state of suspended animation concerning interventions by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I gave way to him far too often on the previous occasion.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Once.

Mr. Healey: I have given way a good deal this evening already. I will consider the hon. and gallant Gentleman's next attempt, but I shall not give way now.
I have discussed the importance of repealing the 1969 constitution if the first and third principles are to be met. Now let us look at the other principles, particularly the principle which concerns the removal of discrimination. The Land Apportionment Act now being introduced in Rhodesia gives one-twentieth of the population half the land. But the situation is far worse because only one in six of the Europeans are farmers, whereas four out of five Africans are farmers. So under the Land Apportionment Act the average European farmer gets 500 times as much land as the average African. Moreover the implementation of that Act means the direct introduction of apartheid and all the abscene practices which go with that to the south in South Africa.
We had some discussion in the debate on the Gracious Speech last week about the proposed evictions from the Epworth Mission of 3,500 Africans, and the Foreign Secretary told us that these evictions were not being proceeded with. But last Sunday the Sunday Times said that officials in Salisbury refused to con- firm reports in London that the eviction of 3,500 Africans from the Epworth Mission had been suspended. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will say whether he has any firm evidence that these evictions have been suspended. The most that I have seen attributed to any Rhodesian representative is that it may be possible to suspend the evictions while the negotiations proceed. But I must ask the Minister to say whether the Government are insisting that the Land Apportionment Act must go, because it is clear that it is totally incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the five principles.
I come to the second and fifth principles, which I gather from the newspapers represent some of the most difficult aspects of the negotiations which the Foreign Secretary is about to undertake.
First, there must be guarantees against retrospective amendment of the settlement agreed. It may be years before there is majority rule in Rhodesia even if a settlement is reached. I must ask the House whether, on the basis of its experience over the last six years, it can really trust Smith's word on this matter, given the long history of his broken promises. But, even more important, it

is quite clear that if Smith did attempt to keep his word, he could be overthrown as easily as he overthrew Winston Field. Indeed, the threat was made yesterday by the Republican Alliance—said to be gaining strength in Rhodesia—to get rid of Smith if he even reached a settlement on the basis of the five principles.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: rose—

Mr. Healey: Against this background, I think that the House will insist that there must be external guarantees if the provisions against retrospective Amendment of the constitution are to carry any conviction, and there must be some practical sanctions envisaged in case there is an attempt thereat. I ask the Minister what sort of sanctions are envisaged and if he will insist that some external body. perhaps the United Nations, perhaps the Commonwealth, is involved in the guarantee against retrospective amendment.
Then we come to the fifth principle. that the settlement reached must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. This means that it must be acceptable to the Africans who comprise 20 out of 21 inhabitants of Rhodesia. We know the African view of the Rhodesian Front Government. The Rhodesian Front has only once put up a candidate in any African constituency. On that occasion, in 1962, the Front got only 86 votes out of 112,000 eligible to be cast. It has never tried since to attract any African votes at all. The Foreign Secretary admitted in 1964 that the traditional chiefs do not accurately reflect majority opinion among Africans.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Healey: I believe the Foreign Secretary is right. But this means that if there is to be an adequate consultation of African opinion, some attempt must be made to canvass the views of responsible political leaders of African opinion, and this means that they must be let out of detention in order to organise, discuss, say and print what they wish. I was concerned when I read in this morning's Press leaks that the Secretary of State is considering a period of only six weeks between signature of an agreement and the completion of consultation. I fail to see how proper discussions could take place in those circumstances.


Will the Secretary of State insist, as the previous Government insisted, that as an essential preliminary to any process of consultation the responsible political leaders of African opinion should be released from detention and enabled to get in touch with their constituents? I hope, too, that the Foreign Secretary will, as he suggested yesterday, take the view of the church leaders in Rhodesia, all of whom are very much closer to African opinion, although they are white, than any of the political leaders of the European Community whom the Foreign Secretary is likely to be able to consult.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Healey: I know for many reasons. The main reason I know this is that the leaders of the Catholic, Methodist and Anglican Churches in Rhodesia have been fighting a courageous fight for the last six years against a regime which is openly racialist and which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has the gall to support in the House.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not get too heated on the matter of my seeing Africans and others. I have told him that I will see African leaders and others and members of the churches. There were neither members of the churches nor Africans on "Tiger" and "Fearless".

Mr. Healey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a little too agitated, because he has totally missed the point. What I was talking about was not the people with whom the Foreign Secretary will talk next week but how consultation is to be carried on and who is to be responsible for obtaining the views of the majority of the African people and ensuring that the settlement is both understood and accepted by them. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary now admits that he made a slight error in making that intervention in that way.
The House is well aware, and the Foreign Secretary is well aware, as he made clear yesterday, that the honour and reputation of the United Kingdom Government and people, as well as of the Foreign Secretary himself, are at stake in these negotiations. I believe that the Foreign Secretary will not betray the five

principles. I believe that he knows that, if he were ever tempted to do so, he would inflict a fatal blow on British influence in Africa and Asia.
If the Foreign Secretary stands firm on this matter, I believe that he can do much to repair the damage which was done by the South African arms issue over the last 12 months. We shall watch with anxiety and vigilance the progress of these negotiations and we shall look forward to a full report to the House when the Foreign Secretary returns.
If the Foreign Secretary succeeds in reaching an honourable settlement, he will deserve the warmest congratulations of all quarters of the House. I say with all the force at my command that I fully support the right hon. Gentleman's view, which he expressed yesterday and today, that an honourable settlement would be infinitely preferable to the continuation of the present situation. I go further and say that if the Foreign Secretary fails in these negotiations, he will nevertheless have done something of some importance in the matter, because he will have demonstrated that it is impossible for any man to reach an agreement on the basis of the five principles with the Smith rÉgime.
But if the right hon. Gentleman were to make an agreement which was not seen to be fully consistent with the five principles I think that he would have inflicted damage on his country's reputation which it would take decades to repair.

7.25 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: If the Opposition wished to choose someone to criticise others for not being trustworthy in keeping their promises and statements about policy, they should certainly have chosen another spokesman than the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). If I had more time at my disposal I should have great fun in going into that matter in more detail.
I should have thought that it would be common ground everywhere in the House, as it is common ground everywhere in Africa, that sanctions have been, and have proved to be, ineffective.

Mr. Faulds: That is not common ground either here or in Africa.

Sir F. Bennett:: There is not one hon. Member other than the vociferous hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), who I wish would climb back on to his perch and have a nut and let us get on with the business, nor is there any other person that I know of elsewhere who does not agree that sanctions have proved ineffective.

Mr. Faulds: Totally untrue.

Sir F. Bennett: I would make one other point.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman should not bother. He is wasting time.

Sir F. Bennett: At least I am wasting it whilst standing up instead of whilst sitting down.
Not only have sanctions proved to be ineffective but they have proved to be counter-productive. The right hon. Gentleman, in almost the only true statement he made admitted this very fact when he conceded that the effect of sanctions and the present policies so far had been to increase the strength of the ultra-Right in Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman made the best case that anyone could make against sanctions.
I turn to the question why I intend to put no obstacle in the way of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I hope that many of my hon. Friends will feel likewise—in the mission he is to undertake on behalf of the House. I was particularly struck yesterday when my right hon. Friend said that his main purpose was to procure a better way of life for the Africans living in Rhodesia than they will get if he fails in his mission. This is the overriding consideration to be brought forward.
As long ago as 1968 the present Home Secretary, when discussing the possibility of an agreement to be reached by the present Opposition, said this:
Only through negotiations can a tragedy of one kind or another be averted. While the negotiations continue, I believe that the status quo on both sides—on sanctions, U.D.I., and so on—should be preserved. But this means that the Government themselves "—
that is, the British Government—
must make some move and show some willingness to move in the direction of negotiatiOns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 838.]

I was convinced of the force of that argument when those now in Opposition were in charge of the negotiations. I could hardly give less opportunity to my own Foreign Secretary to succeed in these negotiations than some of us were prepared to accord the Labour Government in 1968.
It is for that reason, and for that reason alone—and I can advise the Foreign Secretary—there will not be many more occasions, when he will be able to continue to call on the support of those who are convinced in all integrity that sanctions have proved to be ineffective—that I take this attitude tonight.
Finally, I am glad that my right hon. Friend said what he said about the question of consultation on the spot. It has been said that my right hon. Friend is bound to consult opinion on the spot during the course of negotiations. My right hon. Friend was right to point out that this was not one of the preoccupations of the former Prime Minister on either "Tiger" or "Fearless". Let us get it straight that the former Prime Minister was prepared to initial a document that night without going near one African or church leader in Rhodesia.

Mr. Healey: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Hon. Members: He has already sat down.

Mr. Healey: —I wonder whether he would correct his last statement. He will be well aware that the Labour Prime Minister saw Mr. Sithole and Mr. Nkomo and other leaders of African opinion on the only visit that he paid to Rhodesia during his period in office.

Sir F. Bennett: I could not hear a word of what the right hon. Gentleman said; but whatever I would have heard would not have a word of difference to what I said.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: There is very little new to be said in this debate, but I must say, as someone who has not taken any deep, consistent or necessarily highly detailed and informed interest in Africa, that I find the attitudes which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) quite incomprehensible.
The basic question that we are discussing, before we go on, as inevitably we shall, to discuss the Foreign Secretary's intentions within the parameters within which he will operate, is whether sanctions should be maintained. Why were sanctions introduced? Because of U.D.I. Why was U.D.I. introduced? It was because the white minority—a tiny white minority—was determined in perpetuity to hold the reins of government. That is why. It is very simple. There is nothing very complicated about it. I do not understand how hon. Members opposite can argue against the simple principle—the first of the five—that there should be unimpeded progress towards majority rule. I find that quite incomprehensible.
Possibly it is one of these divides in principle which affect all people in politics, but I cannot understand how any member of a democratic Parliament, as ours is, can justify a situation in which, for a period as long ahead as one can conceivably visualise, a minority denies power, democratic aspirations and freedom as we understand it to a great majority of people. I do not understand it at all.
I do not dissent from the Foreign Secretary's desire to talk. Perhaps, in a sense, even more than some of my own colleagues, I have always taken the view that however difficult the person one is dealing with, it is a good thing to talk to him and exchange views. It is a good thing to try. I certainly do not dissent from that.
The Foreign Secretary said in his brief speech—and I do not criticise him for that—that he felt, to use his own expression, that the gap had closed, although there were a number of crucial issues which remained. It seems to me that the whole lesson of the last six years is that the gap has widened. I suppose it is an inevitable part of the beginning of negotiations that the Foreign Secretary has not today, or yesterday when the statement was made, delineated in any way any of the areas in which the gap has closed. It seems to me, however, that the whole trend has been rather the opposite.
Many hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to rehearse the arguments which are well known and which the

right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has gone over, but I should like to say this to the Foreign Secretary. If he reaches an honourable agreement on the basis of the five principles—and, like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, I wish it were possible; I do not believe it is possible, but I am certainly not against people trying—it really is utterly essential that this agreement should be guaranteed in such a way that we can be assured that it will be carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of external guarantees. Indeed, the excellent paper from the Africa Bureau mentioned this and asked:
Can any settlement with Mr. Smith alone be followed without explicit external guarantees to enforce its implementation?
I do not think that is an unfair thing to say after the experience of the last six years or after the experience with South Africa. I do not think external guarantees are practical or are on. In the Middle East the reason Israel does not reach an agreement is that she does not accept their reliability. She could certainly get them, but could she rely on them? When I was there in the summer I was reminded that Czechoslovakia and Poland had external guarantees but it was rather late by the time anything happened. Therefore, I do not think there is any external guarantee, however well intentioned, that would in the end work if the agreement reached honourably was subsequently breached dishonourably.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman has made a point which is in flat contradiction to what his leader said yesterday. There is one external guarantee which could be enforced, and that is the presence of British forces.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman must contain his impatience. That is exactly the point to which I was coming. I was talking about external guarantees. I am now talking about what could be done internally in the Rhodesian sense of the word. I would again draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said yesterday, which was that perhaps the only effective guarantee that one could devise would be some sort of British armed presence in Rhodesia—a


British sovereign base in Rhodesia. I do not see any other form of guarantee which could be effective, because there must be a method of implementing any agreement reached.
We have all been over this ground a lot. Many hon. Members have said today and at other times that the Foreign Secretary is a man of honour. He is a man who means the best. I would say to him that in this case failure with honour can he a success. Success with dishonour would be exactly as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said—a grave disservice to this country and to the whole future of our relations with Africa.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I hope very much that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will come back from Rhodesia successful. I am certain that he will come back with his honour perfectly intact. We wish him well. We realise that he has a difficult task ahead of him. Frankly, I do not share the pessimism of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). After all, there were two attempts when he was in power to reach an agreement with Mr. Smith and his Government. Since then there were nine months of negotiation between officials and three visits of Lord Goodman.
I do not think my right hon. Friend would be going to Salisbury unless he thought there was a reasonable chance of success. Obviously, it cannot be guaranteed, but we all wish him well and we hope that he will come back with an agreement based, as he said, on the framework of the five principles. May I repeat briefly the action of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and run through those five principles. First, unimpeded progress towards majority rule. Here the task is to marry that principle with the present Rhodesian constitution which advocates parity between the races. We must reach parity before we reach majority rule. Therefore, I think this problem is not insoluble. The key here is timing.
I would remind the Opposition that when they met Mr. Smith in H.M.S. "Tiger" they made certain concessions in order to reach an agreement. When they met him again in H.M.S. "Fearless"

they made further concessions to reach an agreement. I hope that when my right hon. Friend comes back from Salisbury they will not expect him to come hack with "one man one vote", because I believe that is what they are going to demand when the time comes. But it is not what they asked for. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) said there was no question of one man one vote, and that majority rule would not come for some considerable time. On the second principle, a guarantee against retrogressive amendment, we have already heard the question, can we trust Mr. Smith? If Mr. Smith were minded to tear up any agreement new, one can only say that he would have been much wiser to have signed on the dotted line before U.D.I. and then torn it up. Indeed, I am certain that he received that advice, but he did not do it because he said then that, when Rhodesians sign agreements, they keep their word.
I am prepared to trust Mr. Smith and his Government. If he reaches an agreement, after all the difficulties which he and his Government have had during the negotiations with the present Opposition, he will keep it. He has, after all, conceded the real key to this question, namely, the blocking quarter, which will give the elected African representatives in Parliament the chance and the power to block any changes in entrenched clauses of the constitution of which they disapprove.

Mr. Frank Judd: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is prepared to trust Mr. Ian Smith's word. Will he tell us how he interprets Mr. Smith's word that there is no question of majority rule within his lifetime?

Mr. Wall: Mr. Smith, to my knowledge, has denied that statement and said that he said no African Nationalist majority rule; he did not necessarily mean majority rule. But, like many hon. Members here, Mr. Smith is a politician who has to think of his own electorate. I am saying that I should trust the word of Mr. Smith if he and his Government put their signature to a document which was signed also by the British Government. I believe that Mr. Smith and his Government would do everything they could to keep that agreement. I say again that it would have been infinitely simpler
[MR. WALL.]
for Mr. Smith to do as his more extreme supporters wanted to persuade him to do, that is, sign on the dotted line many years ago and then tear it up. Incidentally, most other African Governments have done just that; they have torn up nearly every constitution which the House of Commons produced for them. I do not believe that the Rhodesians are prepared to follow that example.
The third principle is improvement in the status of the African. Here, the key is the traditional one in the British Colonial system of a qualified franchise based on education and income. I hope that this will lead back towards the old 1961 constitution, which had as one of its elements a common roll. I regard this as a guarantee for the future.
The fourth principle is progress towards ending racial discrimination. Here, I come to the question of the Methodist mission at Epworth near Salisbury and the Catholic mission at Chishawasha. A few days ago, the Daily Telegraph reported:
Mr. Ian Smith. Rhodesian Prime Minister, is understood to have suspended his Government's plans to evict several thousand African tenants from the 'White'-designated mission lands near Salisbury.
There are reports that this move may well have been designed by certain officials who want to block any settlement. In Rhodesia there may well be such officials, as there may well be officials in this country who, for their part. would regret it if a settlement were reached. So I believe that the reports of the proposed eviction may well not be true.
Any imposition of apartheid on mission lands near Salisbury would not be tolerable, and, if such a thing were persisted in, I could well understand the British Government not reaching agreement with Mr. Smith and his Government. I very much hope that the reports of evictions from the mission territories or deliberate segregation in education are wrong, or that, if they have any truth, any such plans will be dropped at once by the Rhodesians.
The last principle is that a settlement must be acceptable to the people as a whole. We arc told, as in the past when the present Opposition were in power, that this would be sounded by a Royal

Commission. Obviously, my right hon. Friend will have to see representatives of African opinion of all kinds. Unlike some hon. Members opposite. I do not accept that the leaders of Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U. now in detention are leaders of African opinion. They may well be leaders of certain sections of African opinion, but they have never been elected by any Africans. [Interruption.] The elected African Members of Parliament —there are 15 of them—who were elected by African votes are far more representatives of their race's opinion than are the Reverend Sithole or Mr. Nkomo.
I remind the House that those two leaders are now no longer in charge of the Nationalist organisation anyway. We have reports from Lusaka that Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U. have now come together in an association called Frolizi, which has new leaders. This detracts somewhat from the claim of Mr. Nkomo and the Reverend Sithole to be leaders of African opinion.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the reports which have come from Lusaka are that the merging of Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U. came about directly as a result of a request from the two leaders of Z.A.N.U. and Z.A.P.U. in detention?

Mr. Wall: It came about as a direct result of the threat by the President of Zambia to close down both organisations unless they got together, as the O.A.U. has constantly tried to force them together for the last four years.
To my friends in Rhodesia I say this. They may well have won the battle of sanctions. I believe that they have. They have proved that the boast of "Weeks rather than months" was false. But. equally, sanctions have prevented Rhodesia expanding as it should. If they do have a settlement, if they are sensible enough to reach agreement with my right hon. Friend, they will gain three things which they greatly need—recognition, capital and immigration. I believe that a very large number of English men and women will want to go to Rhodesia once a settlement has been reached. Those three things—recognition, capital and immigration—are well worth having.
I remind my friends in Rhodesia also that, if the negotiations fail, although sanctions will continue to be eroded, it


will be very difficult for any British Government to remove them completely, for they have United Nations opinion to consider because the present Opposition went to the United Nations to ask for mandatory sanctions, against all the advice of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
What attitude will the Opposition here adopt? A settlement must, obviously, be based on a compromise. This compromise will not be NIBMAR. It will not be "One man one vote". I hope that the Opposition will remember the concessions which their Government made, both in H.M.S. "Tiger" and in H.M.S. "Fearless". I understand the temptation which they have, particularly at the present time, to unite the party against any settlement which my right hon. Friend brings back.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is not here at the moment, because I have here a good quotation from the Yorkshire Post, his county newspaper:
However it is quite clear that white-ruled Rhodesia is capable of surviving whatever conceivable pressures might be inflicted on her by Britain, the United Nations Organisation or anyone else in the foreseeable future. And if agreement is not reached between Mr. Smith and Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the ranks of the white supremacists will be swelled by bitter and frustrated men who at this point in time might be regarded as moderates. That would lead to more and more discrimination against the black population.
That is what I say to the Opposition. That is what will happen because the alternative to success is to throw Rhodesia into the, arms of South Africa and to force the Rhodesians to adopt an apartheid system which, I am convinced. the majority would not wish.
My final word is to the Government. I regret the timing of this debate. The Government have been in office now for about 16 months. I regard it as unfortunate that they could not reach the present stage of negotiations before asking the House to pass this sanctions Order. Last year, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said. "This time, but never again". Now we are asked again to approve this Order.
I accept that when he goes to Salisbury my right hon. Friend needs this Measure in his pocket; it is one of the major cards he has in his negotiations

with Mr. Smith. But one must accept also that when people such as myself and others of my hon. Friends have consistently voted against sanctions because they felt that they were wrong in principle, and particularly wrong in this case, it is difficult for them not to vote against sanctions again tonight.
I hope, therefore, that it will be decided that it is unnecessary to divide the House on this matter, in view of the very special circumstances and the fact that my right hon. Friend is to go to Salisbury on Sunday. I hope that he will accept that, if that happens, the Order will have been approved on the tacit understanding that it will not run its full term but will be repealed as soon as a settlement is reached. We wish him "God speed" in reaching that settlement.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) gave away his whole case when he said that the Rhodesians will get three things out of a settlement—recognition, capital and immigration. Of course they will. That is why they want a settlement, and the tragedy of the situation is that out of any kind of settlement they are the only beneficiaries. We shall not gain anything7, whatsoever, because it is impossible to get a settlement which would be recognised, by Africa in particular but by the Third World in general. as being an honourable settlement guaranteeing unimpeded progress to majority rule.
We discovered that after two dispiriting attempts to get a settlement. The hon. Member for Haltemprice is right in making the party point that we gave concessions on H.M.S. "Tiger" and on H.M.S. "Fearless". Indeed, it was because we were giving so many concessions that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I divided the House in 1968 on the "Fearless" negotiations. We had given too much. What I fear now is that that arch negotiator, Lord Goodman, should be starting from "Fearless" in his negotiations about where we should go in the present attempted settlement and that Smith, having already declared his independence and his republican constitution, and having already enshrined within that constitution the basis of apartheid, is not


likely now to make the kind of concessions he was unwilling to make as long ago as "Fearless".
Therefore, what I conceive as any kind of settlement that could be brought back by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is one that is a watering down of the "Fearless" position. No such settlement could be accepted by any black African nation as a respectable, honourable settlement. If those nations did not accept it, neither would any others of the Afro-Asian bloc in the United Nations. What, then, is the position of the British Government in the United Nations? What is likely to happen when the Foreign Secretary takes his agreement to the Security Council and says, "Now will you release us from the mandatory sanctions which you applied?"

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman knows that part of Africa, as I do. Has not he been told by African leaders of adjacent black African-ruled States that they want stability above all, and that stability can be returned to Southern and Central Africa only by the ending of sanctions and the futile dispute with the Rhodesian Government?

Mr. Lyon: I have been round those black African States to which the hon. Gentleman referred in a speech last week. I notice that he included the President of Botswana among the leaders he had spoken to. The President of Botswana wants stability in Central Africa. He does not want a dishonourable settlement. [Interruption.] What we are talking about is the definition of an honourable settlement. Seretse Khama has a very different standard from the hon. Gentleman for an honourable settlement. He would not accept a settlement on the "Fearless" terms. He told me that as recently as last April. If he would not accept "Fearless", how could he accept a watered-down version of it that might be brought back by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary?
Even if the right hon. Gentleman could square his conscience to bring back something within the five principles, as he believes them to be, if he went to the Security Council with that document and said "This is the honourable settlement that we have achieved. Now let us take

off sanctions", what would be the effect? We should be vilified in the United Nations and throughout black Africa—and for what purpose? It would be to recover the lost £40 million worth of trade with Rhodesia, which is never likely to come back to us anyway, and to recover the opportunity for investment in a country which has very few Europeans and has a large indigenous African population as against the opportunities for investment in the whole of black Africa. What is to happen to our investments in Nigeria if the right hon. Gentleman returns with a settlement which is regarded by the Nigerian Government as a sell-out?
Can it really be said by Conservative hon. Members that Britain has anything to gain by now going for a settlement? What we have to say at this stage in the proceedings is that no honourable settlement can be negotiated with a white minority Government in Rhodesia, whether headed by Ian Smith or any successor, because they will not agree to any settlement, unless economic pressure is maintained, which could be accepted by any respectable black African Government as honouring the pledge to allow unimpeded progress to majority rule. That is at the very heart of the dilemma.
There was a case at the time of "Tiger" for saying "Sanctions have been on for only a little while. There is a possibility of getting a settlement. Bitterness is not so deep. The Rhodesian whites have not gone so far along the road towards apartheid and, therefore, we may be able to rescue them from that path by taking steps, at the price of some concessions, which would give us something that might be interpreted as an honourable settlement". That day is long past. The Rhodesians have had their republican constitution; they have passed their apartheid legislation. Not only has it been passed but, because it gives the right for certain groups of whites in a neighbourhood to petition for neighbourhoods to be declared white and blacks to be moved out, there is already pressure from neighbourhoods to allow it to be implemented.
Therefore, the Rhodesians already have the smell of apartheid under their nostrils. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect us to believe that, settlement or not, that smell will not continue? After all, why


has South Africa gone for apartheid? It has been independent for 50 years. It has had the opportunity to take whatever course it wanted to take in relation to its black majority and it has gone for apartheid. So would a white minority in Rhodesia, for the very same reason. If the blacks are allowed to have equality of job opportunity and political power, the whites are condemned perpetually to a minority share in their country, because population factors are heavily in favour of the blacks. It is in the economic and political interest of the whites to entrench themselves, and only an act of magnanimity could allow them to forgo that kind of apartheid protection.
The logic of events, whatever their protestations, is that if a country in Africa is given independence with power still vested in the white minority, that white minority will continue to keep the power at all costs, by every means open to them, whatever their leaders say. There- fore, we shall never be able to say, short of taking over the country by force, which no one is now prepared to do, that we can create in Rhodesia a situation in which the whites will not go for apartheid.

Mr. PiersDixon: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is one basic point I do not understand, and I should be very glad if he would help us on it. Is he for or against arriving at a settlement?

Mr. Lyon: I cannot give the whole argument in my first sentence. I am coming to precisely that point. The hon. Gentleman has asked me a fair question: if I do not believe that, settlement or not, we could ever get rid of the threat of apartheid in Rhodesia, short of applying the principle of one man, one vote, what do I say should happen? My answer is that we have now nothing to gain by getting a settlement. We shall not get back lost trade, we shall suffer severe political and economic sanctions in Africa and, possibly, throughout the rest of the Third World if we come forward with an agreement. Let us continue with sanctions. This is the wish of the United Nations, of the black majority in Rhodesia and of the black nations to the north of the Zambesi.

Mr. Dixon: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Lyon: I am trying to answer the question but I am getting another intervention. If, therefore, there is no benefit to be gained for this country or for the black majority in Rhodesia by purporting to have a settlement, let us for goodness' sake put behind us the thought that there can ever be a settlement.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Lyon: Just a moment. We are then faced with the problem, if there can be no settlement, of what is to be the situation about sanctions.

Sir G. Nabarro: That is what I want to ask the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lyon: I shall come to all the points in due course. Let me follow the argument through.

Mr. Cormack: It would seem from what the hon. Gentleman has so lucidly said that he is disagreeing with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who said quite plainly that he wished for a settlement. Is the hon. Member so much in disagreement, or not?

Mr. Lyon: I am saying that I do not believe there is any chance of an honourable settlement. My right hon. Friend said that if an honourable settlement were possible he would hope it could be achieved, but I do not believe it can be achieved. I subscribe to my right hon. Friend's words but, as a matter of political analysis. I do not think it can be done, and I am saying so clearly and facing the inevitable question—what do we do then—which the Foreign Secretary tonight avoided answering by a repetition of his phraseology on the last occasion, when he said that one does not enter into negotiations in the expectation that one will fail. Perhaps not, but at least one makes allowance for the possibility of failure in a situation like the Rhodesian situation.
What is to happen if the Foreign Secretary comes back with his honour intact and no settlement? The hon. Member for Haltemprice says that he will no longer vote for sanctions—

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lyon: So does the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I face the question tonight, but the House at some stage in the next 12 months will have to face it. I put my answer clearly in favour of continuing sanctions—

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Lyon: Just let me finish—continuing sanctions if need be into the foreseeable future, because sanctions are beginning to hurt. Initially we applied sanctions in the expectation that they would achieve political results in months —I think it was weeks rather than months.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has used the word "logic". He agreed with his own Front Bench that sanctions should he continued, but is he aware that during the last three, years the average rate of growth of the gross national product of Rhodesia has been 6 per cent. per annum, three times greater than the rate of growth in this country, and that Rhodesia has an abundance of everything notwithstanding sanctions? What, therefore, is the logic of continuing sanctions?

Mr. Lyon: I wish that the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South would get together with his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice who says that we should take off sanctions so that Rhodesia can grow. He says that Rhodesia wants capital. Of course it wants capital. If the hon. Member for Worcestershire. South looks at the gross national product of most of the countries in the developing world. he will find comparable rates of increasing growth. In many of the developing nations, which are starting from a much lower base, we should expect to find very much higher rates of growth than in a developed country like ours. which is suffering from the difficulties of having old manufacturing industries which are running down. It is an inevitable part of the analysis of the economies of the developing world.
In Rhodesia, with a settled European population and already some manufacturing potential, one would expect that in the years since 1965 the rate of growth would have been very much higher. Rhodesia expected that, but the capital could not be obtained. It is because the

Rhodesians cannot get the capital that they want a settlement. It is not we who are over the barrel; it is they who are over the barrel.
We should keep on sanctions longer to add to the economic difficulties of the Rhodesian rÉgime until the whites in Rhodesia recognise that there is no future for them when, even though they have the political power, they cannot have the economic benefits of that political power. That is what we should be drumming into them by every means in our power.
We should be making the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations a viable institution. We should be making the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee a viable institution. The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee meets twice a year with the Commissioners here in London. The High Commissioners are concerned about what the British Government have failed to do, and the British Government do not even tell them what is happening in relation to the negotiations with Smith about a settlement in Rhodesia. How can that be said to be a use of the Sanctions Committee either of the Commonwealth or the United Nations?
There is much more we could do to tighten up sanctions against Rhodesia and to make them bite even more than they are biting now. The reason why sanctions were not as effective as many people prophesied—not I—in 1965 is that there was a great gaping hole through South Africa and the Portuguese territories. In addition, countries like France were prepared to continue to send petroleum to Rhodesia by illegal means and then protest to the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations that they were not doing so. It is interesting to note that French policy in relation to Southern Africa is changing and that the French are now much more aware of the threat to their position in the northern States of Africa if they continue their existing racist policy.
There may be a chance of tightening up the sanctions campaign, but even at its present level it is hitting Smith and the white minority regime in Salisbury. In these circumstances it is criminal that we should be proposing action to take away the threat of sanctions. They should continue until the white minority in Rhodesia recognise that there is no future for them in a situation where, although


they may hold the political power, the black African majority are dispossessed. For that reason I am against negotiating with Smith at this moment, I am against any settlement—which I think is bound to be dishonourable—and I am against the Foreign Secretary going to Salisbury.

8.9 p.m.

Mr.JohnBiggsDavison: The speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) was gloomy and urconstructive. He does not want my right hon. Friend to go to Salisbury, he does not want an end to sanctions, he does not want a settlement, honourable or otherwise. with the Rhodesian authorities. He said that the only beneficiaries of a settlement would be those who now hold the power in Rhodesia. This is not so. The main beneficiaries of a settlement, as was indicated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. are the African majority in Rhodesia.
The hon. Member for York was at great pains to say sanctions were biting and that as a result Rhodesia was short of capital investment. This is a complaint we share with Rhodesia since the United Kingdom, too, is very short of capital investment.—He was at great pains to say—I am not sure he was wholly accurate—that the sanctions are having a success and are bringing economic pressure to bear on Rhodesia. If this is true, who is it that suffers? Is it the white minority? No, it is not. If anybody suffers in Rhodesia as a result of sancztions, it is the African people.
It is not shown in statistics when Africans lose their jobs and go off and scratch a living somewhere in the tribal trust areas. I wish some hon. Members would show rather more regard for ordinary human beings in Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—instead of standing on their high principles and saying, "We want to go on bringing sanctions to bear on Rhodesia", not caring tuppence about what happens to the African.

Miss Joan Lestor: rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison:: I will give way in a moment. He said the only beneficiaries were those who were holding the power. What will happen if sanctions are brought to an end? Who will be the main bene-

frciaries? I say again that it will be the Africans. On the assumptions made by the hon. Member for York there will be more economic and educational development in Rhodesia. And if there is a normal political relationship between Rhodesia and other countries, including the United Kingdom—in other words, if the heat is off Rhodesia—it will be possible for political dissent to return. Rhodesia is a country where in normal circumstances there is a great deal of politics. At the moment there is very little politics there. It is considered among the white population a patriotic duty to support the Rhodesia Front because the Rhodesians feel the world is making war on them— economic and psychological war. If we bring about a settlement, it will be found that political dissent can revive in Rhodesia.

Mr. Faulds:: As in South Africa?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: There can be some chance of different political tendencies having some expression again in Rhodesia, as they always did prior to the unilateral declaration of independence.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Gentleman said the Africans were the ones suffering as a result of sanctions because they were losing their jobs. If that is true, why is it the Rhodesian Government did not seize the opportunity to increase job opportunities for those Africans who had been displaced, instead of bending over backwards to encourage immigration into Rhodesia by people from outside thus preventing the African population moving into jobs that were available?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not know the details of the present policy of the Rhodesian Government with regard to immigration. Any Rhodesian Government, whether illegal or recognised, will be concerned to encourage immigration from countries which can bring wealth, expertise and development to Rhodesia. And I do not know what the hon. Lady is driving at when she says that white immigrants are being brought in to deprive black people in Rhodesia of jobs.
I want now to make my own case. I am opposed to this Order for the renewal of sanctions. I wanted to say something about the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds. East (Mr. Healey). but the Shadow Foreign Secretary is in


and out of the Chamber—he makes his own speech and out he goes. I thought he would come back, but he has gone again. I will not follow his commentary on the party management, or one might say stage management, of all this. I had a certain amount of sympathy with what he said about that, but since he is not present I will not take that point any further. However, I would differ with him in giving an unqualified message of God-speed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
The right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate for the Opposition should be ashamed of his meanness. Indeed, the Labour Party should be ashamed of their whole record on Rhodesia. The sanctions to which I have been consistently opposed —and I am on record as having opposed them before they were introduced—are the work of the Labour Party and of the Government headed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption.] Yes. I opposed them before they were introduced. I said they would be a futile farce and they have been shown to be advantageous only to our enemies and our trading competitors.
I am always touched by the fervent royalism of the extreme Left wing of the Labour Party when Rhodesia is discussed. It was the achievement of the present Leader of the Opposition when Prime Minister—he of weeks not months, which then became years not decades, and, if the hon. Member for York has his way, will be decades not centuries—to claim the great credit of having converted some of the most fervent royalists of the world, those of Rhodesia, into resentful republicans. With all his talk of rebellion against the Crown, he deprived the Queen of a fair dominion. Now right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are at it again and want to spoil the chance of a settlement. What they really want, if they have their way and spoil a settlement with Rhodesia, is to extend the South African empire to the Zambesi.
I agree that the task of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is formidable. I see great difficulties in bringing within the framework of the five principles a settlement with Rhodesians, who have given to themselves a constitution

which not only has been passed by their Parliament but has been endorsed by referendum. It is not an apartheid constitution.

Mr. Faulds:: It is not a Parliament either.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not see how one can describe as apartheid a constitution which is aimed at bringing parity of representation and equal representation from two races into the same Parliament. One may dislike it or think it wrong or stupid, but it is not an apartheid constitution. It is however a problem how one squares such a constitution with this set of principles.
In this difficulty the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition conies to our rescue because, not to be outdone by the Tories, he had to have a principle of his own. To the five principles the right hon. Gentleman added a sixth, which was that such a state of affairs should be brought about in Rhodesia that the whites should not be able to dominate the blacks and oppress them or vice verse. That is the sixth principle. I suppose in the circumstances of Africa, with all we have learnt about what happens to majority rule in Africa, one could say that parity between the races in a Parliament, giving effect to the sixth principle of the right hon. Gentleman, might be worse.
However it is not for me to say how this hand should be played. I feel a bit like the Irishman who said, "If I had wanted to get there I would not have started from here." It would have been a good idea if we had decided long ago to deal in facts rather than in phrases.
What is the great fact in this situation? I think that it is admitted everywhere now. I know that there are idealists who want to soldier on through the decades and the centuries keeping themselves right with their consciences. At the expense of the African population, they want to go on and on with sanctions against the admitted fact of independence. They do not deny it. No one in this House denies that Rhodesia today is an independent State.

Mr. Faulds: Unrecognised by anyone.

Mr. Biggs-Davison:: So far unrecognised. At the time of U.D.I., the Leader


of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, asked the judges in Rhodesia to remain at their posts and to continue to administer justice. In the Appellate Division of the High Court in Salisbury there was an interesting dispute. It was not whether Rhodesia was an independent State. It concerned the issue to which the hon. Member for Smethwich (Mr. Faulds) has just referred. I know what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the judges in the High Court, especially about Sir Hugh Beadle—

Mr. Faulds: It happens to be a fact.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We have respect for the judiciary in Salisbury. All fair-minded people do—

Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The dispute in the Appellate Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way"] I am in the middle of a sentence—was whether this independent State was independent de facto or de jure.

Mr. Faulds: Is the hon. Gentleman really claiming that that chap Beadle is a representative of a reasonable, responsible judiciary or one for which any Member of this House would have regard, considering his rÔle as main traitor in the arranging and carrying out of I.D.I.?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Leaving aside the opprobrious epithets, yes.

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman regards him with respect?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Certainly I regard him and the other judges in Rhodesia with respect.
Reference has been made to the leaders of the two African nationalist movements, Mr. Joshua Nkomo and the Rev. Sithole. It has been said that they are not able to express their opinions. The hon. Member for Smethwick asked why they were not given a chance to get themselves elected as representative leaders of their people. They had their chance. In 1961, a constitution was given to Rhodesia by this House. It was a constitution which would have taken Rhodesia to majority rule. It was a constitution which was accepted by Mr. Nkomo and by the Rev. Sithole in London. However, when they

went back to Salisbury they repudiated the constitution that they had accepted.
The 1961 constitution was one which most white people in Rhodesia did not like.

Mr. Faulds:: It would hardly have led to majority rule.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I think that most people in Rhodesia did not like a constitution which, with progress in economic and educational development, would have led to majority rule.

Mr. Faulds: It would have done nothing of the sort.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It had to be sold to the electorate. Sir Edgar Whitehead sold it. I think with the understanding of the then Government here, by assuring the Rhodesian electorate that this was the last concession that would have to be made before Rhodesia had its independence. On the break-up of the Federation, the two other territories were given their independence. The Rhodesians expected their independence, and they were given to understand that, having accepted a constitution which would have led to African majority rule, they should have their independence.
The 1961 constitution has been interpreted. again by the High Court of which the hon. Member for Smethwick does not approve but which people with some knowledge of the law and the judicial process respect. The High Court in Salisbury has said, I think rightly, that, in effect, the 1961 constitution was incompatible with colonial status. I do not know. I am not a lawyer, like the hon. Member for Smethwick—

Mr. Faulds: I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Exactly. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer. We are agreed—

Mr. Faulds: For once.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: But, although Southern Rhodesia has governed itself since 1923, although the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia was always admitted to the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers until Federation, and although there has never been any direct rule of Rhodesia by this country, no imperial garrison, and its civil servants
[MR. BIGGS-DAVISON.]
have always been locally recruited, I suspect that the hon. Member for Smethwick and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that Rhodesia is a colony in rebellion.
What do the international law authorities say about that? I see that we have my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General with us—

Mr. Faulds: That will not be much help.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to help me. It is very good that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is going to Salisbury—

Mr. Faulds: I wish that he would stay there.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thought that the speech quoted by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East was very good. It was just the sort of thing that should be heard from law officers. Brierly, Oppenheim and other legal authorities say that, if a mother State fails to subdue a rebellious colony, that rebellious colony ought to be recognised as a State. Even if other lawyers dispute that, it is common sense and it is in conformity with British foreign policy as it has been pursued from Government to Government.
There has been heart-searching and head-shaking about the seating of Communist China at the United Nations. There is a Motion on the Order Paper about it in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. Stewart-Smith). But, in deciding whether to recognise the Peking regime, whether to recognise any revolutionary regime, in Africa or anywhere else, what successive Conservative and Labour Governments have always stressed is the question: Do the people who have power there have effective control? The worst enemies of Mr. Ian Smith and his friends would scarcely deny that they have very effective control over Rhodesia. The Peking Government came to power by massacre and has been preserved by the obscenities of the Cultural Revolution—

An Hon. Member: Nonsense.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: No doubt the hon. Gentleman would say that everything done

by the present Communist authorities in China is impeccable. All right. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view. But the point is that the Peking Government is seated at the United Nations with the full approval of and upon a vote by Her Majesty's Government, whereas Rhodesia is not even permitted to plead her case at the United Nations.
Throughout Africa, from A to Z, Algeria to Zanzibar—if genocide means anything, there was genocide in Zanzibar —there has been speedy recognition of every revolutionary usurpation. Of course, the revolution in Rhodesia was different. It was bloodless. Nobody got hurt. It caused no break in the continuity of parliamentary government and judicial process. It is less of a police state than all the others. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentleman do not follow events in Africa.
On 18th October I tabled a Question to my right hon. Friend who, we understand, is responsible for Rhodesia. We in this House arc supposed to be responsible for Rhodesia. We ought, therefore, to be responsible for the liberty of individual Rhodesians. I asked my right hon. Friend
how many Rhodesian Africans are in custody or on bail in Zambia; with what offences they have been charged; what have been the periods in custody in each case; what representations have been made; and with what result?".
The Answer was:
Nine Africans detained in Zambia under public security or immigration regulations have been identified as Rhodesian citizens. Representations have been made on behalf of two in custody since 1969.
It is now 1971.
Inquiries are continuing about the other seven, who have been detained in recent months. None of these has yet been tried or released."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1971; Vol. 823, c. 49-50.]

I understand the realities of government in Africa; but it is strange that, when so much is made about our responsibility for Rhodesia, we do not hear anything about Rhodesians who are detained without trial in a neighbouring African state.
I pray that my right hon. Friend may succeed. I suppose that it is now or never. If a settlement is not reached, let it be clear that the days of sanctions are numbered. Many of my hon. Friends have always opposed sanctions. We


oppose them now. If a Division is called I shall vote against the Order.
It has been said from the Treasury Bench—I noticed it with care—that Salisbury does not expect the termination of sanctions with the negotiations in progress. I am not personally more Rhodesian than the Rhodesians. I have always taken my stand on the facts of the situation and on the British interest. But if there is a Division, the Government can have their Order with Labour and Liberal support, which is only proper, because sanctions are a Socialist measure.
It does not lie in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition or any of his colleagues to talk about loss of British sovereignty in Europe when they abjectly surrendered British sovereignty over our relationship with Rhodesia to the United Nations where, alas, the highest common factor is hostility to British and European interests.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is rather curious that, six years after the declaration of U.D.I. and probably the fifth debate on the continuation of sanctions, the only speech from the Government side in support of sanctions has been from the Front Bench. Not one Government back bencher has spoken a word of sympathy for sanctions. Therein lies the reason that Mr. Smith refused to sign after H.M.S. "Tiger" and after H.M.S. "Fearless". He has always believed that if he hung on long enough he could get a much better deal from the Tory Party. He has always felt that if he hung on long enough he would get hi; own way and complete independence without any of the trappings tied to him by the five principles.
The seed of the rebellion in Rhodesia by the white minority has been nurtured by hon. Members opposite. For some of them to complain that some of the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) were not helping the situation is to show their complete misunderstanding of the climate of opinion in Rhodesia. As long as hon. Gentlemen opposite condemn sanctions and any settlement, except on the basis of giving in to Smith, then so long will Smith agree to carry on with his present stand. They stand up and

hypocritically wish the Foreign Secretary God-speed. The right hon. Gentleman has to run fast to escape the knives being stuck in his back by his hon. Friends [An HON. MEMBER: "Absolute rubbish."] It is true, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not.
We understand from the Foreign Secretary that if he is able to reach some agreement with Mr. Smith and his Government there will be a period of about six weeks in which to test whether the settlement is acceptable to the majority of opinion in Rhodesia. We have heard these nice little cracks about how Mr. Nkomo and the Reverend Sithole are not really representative of African opinion. The same thing was said about Mr. Kenyatta in Kenya and, going further back, about Mahatma Gandhi. One is almost driven to the conclusion that some African leaders who were despised in the past have been almost canonised by the Government of South Africa, especially when one thinks of their attitude to Doctor Banda. And what happened to him at the time of the Central Africa Federation. Let us not have any nonsense about African leaders being unrepresentative of their people.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The difference is that Mahatma Gandhi and the India National Congress made full use of such parliamentary constitutions as there were. Mr. Sithole and Joshua Nkomo refused to work the parliamentary constitutions which would have led them to majority rule.

Mr. Hughes: I do not believe that the 1961 constitution would, in time, have led to majority rule. But even if one concedes that that was possible, why should African leaders and African opinion in Rhodesia accept a delay leading to majority rule when the other two countries which formed part of the Central African Federation got their independence on the basis of universal adult suffrage? No African leader with any sense would have accepted such a thing.
If there was to be a real chance of an honourable settlement, African leaders —not just the political leaders, but trade union and church leaders, too—ought to have been sitting round a table discussing what sort of constitution they were prepared to accept. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that that did not
[MR. HUGHES.]
happen in "Tiger" and "Fearless". The Government had better learn to stand on their own two feet when they make proposals, and stop trying to duck out of their responsibility by chucking epithets from one side of the House to the other.
Even allowing for the fact that there has been no real consultation with the African leaders, what we have to recognise is that time does not stand still. Events have changed the situation in Africa, and what might have been acceptable five years ago, four years ago, or even two years ago, is no longer acceptable to the people in Africa and in Rhodesia, because they are rightly becoming impatient and are being driven to the view that there can be no real settlement.
We have heard the story that any settlement must have some kind of external guarantee. We know that internal guarantees dressed up in terms of constitutional blocking quarters, two- thirds majorities, and so on, do not begin to work. Anyone who thinks that they will work has only to look at the position in South Africa. Coloured people were given some rights in the Cape Province on the common roll. I shall not go into the infamous saga of the special High Court of Parliament set up to judge whether legislation introduced into the South African Parliament was legal, or the way in which the Senate was enlarged to get round a part of the constitution which was not explicit.
We know that if the Government, or the people in power, are ruthless enough, or determined enough, to get round a written constitution in order to preserve their own prestige, privilege and power, they will get round any written constitution that can be devised by man. The only real basis for a settlement which is honourable to the people of this country who have a long tradition of democracy and of working to the principle of one man one vote, and one woman one vote, is that of no independence before majority rule. That is the only way in which we can arrive at an honourable settlement. But we have been told that there is no chance of the present Foreign Secretary trying to negotiate a settlement on that basis. Therefore, we must ask whether it is possible for there to be some sort of external guarantee or sanction which can last for as long as the implementation of a settlement takes.
It is not only unimpeded progress towards majority rule which is important, but the length of time it takes. If it takes 50 years, it can never be acceptable; nor would 30 years be accepted as short enough to make the sanctions written into the agreement effective. I understand—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that there are held in this country some frozen funds belonging to Rhodesia. If so, they should not be released until majority rule is reached.
I should certainly like to see some military garrison stationed in Rhodesia, with the possibility that, if the Government of Rhodesia reneged on their promise, some military action would be taken. But I recognise that that would not be the Government's view or a practical possibility at this moment of time. The only practical time to use military force was at the time of U.D.I. Had we had the will then to apply military force, the strategic consequences could have been easily worked out, and I believe that it would have been effective.
But although we cannot station military force in Rhodesia now, we should write into any settlement what steps will be taken by this Government, in conjunction with the United Nations, so that any country bordering Rhodesia which gave assistance and succour to a Government which breaks its word would know exactly where it stood in relation to sanctions. We should say to the South African Government as well that any breaking of settlements or support of the Rhodesian Government would be met with the full force of any sanctions which we decided to apply.
Some hon. Members opposite are very prone to call in aid the word of God. It is certainly not for me, as a man of no religious persuasion, to preach the gospel or to tell hon. Members opposite what their Christian duty is, but I should like some of them to take note of the resolution passed by the Christian Council of Rhodesia on 8th September, 1971. The Christian Council represents the majority of churches in Rhodesia. Its resolution called very strongly for the kind of atittude in which many of my lion. Friend believe.
It went on to say:
It is not enough to cloak political ideas in Christian language and to talk of justice and


democracy where these things do not in fact exist. Human rights are too important to be left as side issues. They must be central, written into the constitution and able to be defended in the courts of law.
It went on to make other points about how a settlement would have to be acceptable to the chosen leaders of all sections of opinion—political, trade union, Christian and others.
The Foreign Secretary carries a very great responsibility. It is a responsibility, in my view, as great as was carried by the Prime Minister of this country when he went to Munich in 1938. No one can doubt that a settlement which is dishonourable and unfair to the majority of people in Rhodesia means for Southern Africa the kind of bleak future which the world faced after 1938. It is a future of violence.
Some hon. Members opposite, when one talks of violence in Southern Africa, ask, "If there is such determination by the Africans to gain their independence, why has there not been the violence which we have been led to expect in South Africa and Rhodesia?" It should be a matter for rejoicing that, up to now, the African people have placed and kept their faith in non-violent means of obtaining their independence. If we fail them now, we are shutting the door for ever after on any peaceful settlement and there will be no other possibility except the way of revolution and of violence. I for one will support them every inch of the way if that is what they are driven to. I have no hesitation in saying that here tonight.
I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not here, because I intend to refer to him. There has been speculation in the Press—I accept that such speculation is not always reliable—and suggestions elsewhere that the Foreign Secretary would consider it a fitting end to his career if he were able to get an honourable settlement in Rhodesia. Many others take the view that it would he a tragedy if he ended his career by arriving at what we would regard as a dishonourable settlement as far as the aspirations of the majority of the people of Rhodesia are concerned.
In my view it would be a fitting end to his career if, having achieved the fame, if that is the word, and notoriety of being associated with Munich in 1938, he got a settlement which made him

nothing more than the P.P.S. to Mr. Smith, a so-called Prime Minister who is nothing but a Fascist in his ideals.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I would find it difficult to go along with anything that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) said. I enjoyed listening to his remarks until the end, when he spoiled them with a gratuitous and insulting peroration.
The hon. Gentleman accused a number of unspecified hon. Members on this side of the House—he may well include myself —of nurturing the present Rhodesian Government. I wish at the outset to put two points to him about this, and he is entitled to say that they are points in defence.
First, those of us who opposed these measures in the first place did not strike our attitude simply when U.D.I. was first declared. We did so well before that. We opposed sanctions for reasons which some of my hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), have developed at length because we did not think they would ever work, a part from any other consideration.
More important than that, we took account—certainly I always tried to do so, as one who was for many years connected with Rhodesia—of the history of the relations of a whole series of Rhodesian Governments with a series of British Governments. We took the view—certainly I did—that there was great injustice in the dealings of those British Governments with the Rhodesians, and I have made no exception as far as my party is concerned.
Matters got worse and worse. Every time the Rhodesians made a concession it was never quite enough. They were led to believe—perhaps because they were too simple people: they were led to hope that they would be able to reach their independence if they did this or that, but whatever they did it was never quite enough.
All of us in this House are to some extent guilty in this matter, and certainly I absolve no political party in this country. It is clear, therefore, that there was a long history before we came to oppose sanctions. I simply ask the hon. Member


for Aberdeen, North to bear this in mind, because it is an important factor in this long and miserable story.
The second point I put to the hon. Member concerns his view about violence and military force in Rhodesia. I think it fair to say that he recognises that to send British forces there today would be impractical, though the way he put it was that it would not fit in with the view of the present Government. I must put it to him that if there is any shortage of British military forces today at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government, that is hardly the fault of the present British Government. If we do not have enough, or, rather, if we are extended to cope with a real threat here on our doorstep in British streets, how hon. Gentlemen opposite can delude themselves into thinking that we could undertake an expedition of that kind—at any stage over the last decade, let alone now—surpasses imagination.
I do not wish to castigate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North about this. However, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) exclaimed in an intervention—in which he was now more illuminating than in his whole speech— that British troops should be sent there. [Interruption.] Indeed, that is the only logic of his idiotic argument. I will not go into it further except to point out that the folly of believing such a thing, if it were possible at any stage in the last decade, let alone now, destroys a lot of what many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said tonight.
I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes. Much has already been said on this unhappy matter this evening and over the years. It is a matter of some bitterness to me that, yet again, we should be faced with this dreary debate and these arguments, which we have all hashed over again and again, and with this Order. It is a matter of disappointment to me that after 14 or 15 months since the accession of the present Government we should still have to do so, although I recognise the difficulties that exist. I rejoice—as I believe all my right hon. and hon. Friends rejoice—at the prospect of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's going out to Rhodesia. I have already wished him

good luck, and I now repeat my good wishes.
I want to make what is in the nature of a personal statement on this matter. I believe that I am right in saying that I have opposed this Order on every occasion on which it has come before the House, until now —for the sort of historical and practical reasons that I have tried to deploy. I do not believe that sanctions are working. I did not think that they would. I do not believe that they have a material part to play in the coming negotiations. Other things do—yes, on the Rhodesian side— but sanctions, no. I believe that sanctions have damaged not only this country's economic position but the clear thought to which we were always accustomed and which we expected of our Governments. I could never imagine that such a policy as this would succeed. I have opposed it all along.
This evening I am placed in great difficulty. I feel that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the same position. Above all—as somebody who is at least half Rhodesian—what I want, and have always wanted, hoped and prayed for, is a settlement of this miserable dispute. Therefore, I do not wish to do anything this evening which my right hon. Friend, upon whose shoulders this heavy responsibility lies, might construe as likely to make his task more difficult.
Whatever may be my own view as to the merits of the policy, this is no time to strike attitudes, or try to strike sparks out of newspaper columns in the morning. This is a time to do what we can to assist my right hon. Friend in the task in which I so fervently hope that he will succeed.
The only other matter to which I want to refer is the question of the five principles. I believe—as, I hope, a practical man—that it was a mistake to adopt and adapt these principles in the first place. I have said this to my right hon. Friend before now; it is no secret. I say this not because any one of them is necessarily wrong but because as soon as one lays down principles, one limits and renders more inflexible the conduct of any negotiations. From that point of view it was a pity that the five principles were laid down. Subsequent events have proved


the truth of that. But there we are; it is manifestly clear that whatever my right hon. Friend, as an honourable man, brings back must be confined within them.

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the principles were a mistake, although not because they were necessarily wrong. Does he accept the five principles?

Mr. Hastings: I should have to go away and look them all up. For instance, unimpeded progress to majority rule can mean 65 different things—

Mr. Strang: What does it mean to the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hastings: To explain that would involve a dissertation on the history of Rhodesia, on what I conceive to be the attitude of the Africans and on what in the end will come about. There is nothing conceivable that the hon. Member for York, or any hon. Member or Government, past, present or future, can do to ensure that end. The only thing that can do it is good will, and that is what so many hon. Members opposite are really trying to destroy.

Mr. Faulds: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a dissertation on the other four principles? What are they?

Mr. Hastings: The day the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) wants me or any of my hon. Friends to give way to him or to reply seriously to him, he must first improve the manners he displays in the House.

Mr. Faulds: I woul drather have my beliefs than your manners.

Mr. Hastings: Most hon. Members opposite take the matter seriously. Indeed, I think that our debates in the House, and, generally speaking, at this hour of night, which are most worth while are those in which both sides accept that in our various ways we are trying to reach a reasonable solution. That is probably the present case. We have had many of these debates and whatever attitudes we strike, most of us are concerned with the same problem and are trying to resolve it honestly in our various ways. I do not mean this in any accusatory way but I sincerely put it to right

hon. and hon. Members opposite. I mentioned the principles for a purpose. I mentioned what I thought to be their limitations in terms of interpretation and negotiation.
If, happily, my right hon. Friend comes back between now and Christmas or in the new year with a solution which satisfies him, it is a fair bet, and I think that everyone, including the hon. Member for York, will concede it, that whatever my right hon. Friend brings back will be open to a number of different interpretations. It will be easy to destroy it. It will be simple to make out that it does not fit in with this or that principle, not only in every detail but in major respects. I defy the ingenuity of man to achieve any better result. That is what we shall be faced with.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore recognise that if this so-called settlement is to have any chance of success, it must depend on acceptance by the African majority and that it is their good will rather than the good will of the whites on which we are dependent?

Mr. Hastings: We can discuss that point until the cows come home. Of course, that is so in a sense, but it is very difficult to define. I could ask the hon. Gentleman to explain exactly what the good will or opinion of the African majority in Rhodesia is. I have met these people often enough. I have trekked about in the Zambesi and talked with them whenever I have had the chance. It is not an easy matter to work out. In principle, however, I recognise that position. I only ask the hon. Gentleman to have the good will also to accept my proposition, but I see that he does not want negotiations of any kind, in which case I have nothing more to say to him.
But there are, I am sure, many hon. Members opposite who must be faced with this dilemma. If they really want an end to this miserable situation, and if my right hon. Friend comes back with something which he believes fits in with the five principles, let them examine their own consciences at this hour, and from now on. Will they treat the matter objectively, will they made out of it some sort of political campaign or will they simply try to strike what they conceive


to be fashionable attitudes over it? I earnestly pray and hope not.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What about the attitudes of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Hastings: It applies to everyone. I am making no exceptions but am making a plea to the House, that if—and he has not been all that optimistic—my right hon. Friend should return with what he conceives to be an honourable solution it should be treated on its merits and in terms of what so many of us have represented may be the consequences should this last chance fail. We have heard views about Rhodesia and the future of Africa again and again in our debates on this and other matters. Again, I appeal to those hon. Gentlemen opposite who may believe, as I do, that probably there is sense on both sides to reflect on this. Those of us who have experience of Rhodesia suggest that should this chance slip, the frontier of apartheid and Dutch South African control would advance to the Zambesi, with all that that would mean. This is a serious consequence of failure.
Secondly, any hope of those in Rhodesia—and I know many—who have opposed U.D.I.; who are moderate people; who have worked, selflessly in many cases, for the African, in many different sectors of life, for this element —possibly tenuous—of multi-racialism which exists there; any hope of their obtaining any further influence or power would be gone for the foreseeable future. That surely also would be a serious consequence of failure.
Finally, economically, African unemployment is an undoubted fact. If this miserable business had not started, Rhodesia's economy by this time would have been booming. There is no doubt about that. If a settlement is achieved. boom it will, and this will bring employment and thus bring the beginnings of economic power to the African. I have always thought that it is through economic power that the African will really advance, and not through the artificial imposition of Western concepts of democracy—one man one vote. I think African experience proves that this is the case, but I recognise that it is a matter of opinion. It is certainly mine.
If a settlement is achieved, it is just posible—I put it no higher— that possible—I put it no higher—that Rhodesia could become a sort of entrepÔt, a centre for communications, ideas and diplomacy, a point of contact between the black-ruled States of the North and the rigid rule of South Africa in the South, and the Portuguese territories as well. There are sure signs of this possibility and there have been for some years now. This is not impossible to envisage. At least it is a chance, and goodness knows there is danger of enough misery and unhappiness in Central Africa if it does not come about. So that, surely, is also something worth striving for. The outright rejection of such a possibility— assuming that I am not imagining it, and I do not think that I am—would also be a serious consequence of failure.
I say to hon. Members, on all sides of the House, let us examine what my right hon. Friend brings back, not every comma and full stop, but whether, as he said, it lies within the framework of these principles; and let us do so in the full knowledge that if this last chance fails, the consequences are almost sure to equate with what I have sought to describe.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I always listen with great interest to the contributions that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) makes to these debates. He puts with a certain candidness a point of view to which I am entirely opposed. I say only one thing about the hon. Gentleman's remarks as to the possibility of the Secretary of State bringing back a proposed settlement within the terms of the five principles. If the Foreign Secretary is the man of principle that I believe him to be—this is a view widely shared on this side— it is totally impossible to envisage a situation in which he would bring back a proposed settlement which he would feel to be within the terms of the five principles and which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire would find acceptable.
In this annual debate, as it has now been for several years, in which we renew this legislation on sanctions, it would be remiss of us not to take the opportunity of looking at some of the wider dimensions of the policy we are asked to renew. All of us will agree that the sanctions policy


has not been 100 per cent. effective or successful. In saying that, we also clearly recognise that the major cause of the ineffectivenes of the sanctions policy has been the overt and deliberate policy of Portugal and South Africa in determining to subvert the international operation.
This is where our foreign policy becomes so incredible in the eyes of the world beyond Britain; because at the very time that we plead that the sanctions policy has been ineffective the world sees us on numerous occasions apparently determined to strengthen, at different levels, the bonds of friendship between Britain and Portugal and between Britain and South Africa, the two countries most determined to undermine our policy in what has been one of our most difficult problems for a decade.
This is one lesson which we must draw. It is incumbent upon the Secretary of of State to explain to the House on some occasion where the consistency in our foreign policy on this front lies.
There is another point which should be examined in terms of the wider dimensions of this policy. If the sanctions policy against Rhodesia fails, what is the lesson to be drawn by the world in terms of future policy agreed, for example, at the United Nations? I fear that there is a very grim lesson to be drawn. If we cannot as an international community successfully enforce a policy of sanctions against the community of a mere 239,000 people out of a total population of more than 5 million, can we ever envisage a time in the future in which a sanctions policy will be possible? If we cannot envisage a time when a sanctions policy will ever be effective, we have to accept that, short of force, there is no way of an international community enforcing its will when it believes that its will should he enforced.
Although I agree with those on both sides who have said that the sanctions policy has not been 100 per cent. effective, for the reasons that I have outlined, it is also clear as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, that sanctions have had a good deal more effect than some people are willing to admit. It is because of their effect that Smith at this juncture is willing to consider the possibility of a settlement and to sue for terms.
If we understand and appreciate this, it is incumbent upon all of us in the House tonight to do everything possible to strengthen the bargaining position of the Foreign Secretary as he goes to Salisbury. To refuse, or to contemplate refusing, to renew the sanctions policy tonight would completely undermine the Foreign Secretary's position and tremendously strengthen Ian Smith's hand as these two gentlemen meet in negotiation in Salisbury. Ian Smith would quickly recognise that he had very little to lose even if a settlement were not forthcoming, because he would realise that if no settlement were forthcoming and if this House were nevertheless contemplating the removal of sanctions he would get the economic benefits of the removal of sanctions without the crowning triumph of political recognition. He would also realise as he got the economic benefits of collaboration with this country, without perhaps political recognition at this stage, that we would find as a result of the expanding economic links of various kinds that inevitably pressures were mounting for a formal recognition of the Rhodesian regime at a later stage, and in any case we would quickly be propelled into a position of de facto recognition of the rÉgime.
An unprincipled recognition of the regime of the type I have described would mean that apart from the Rhodesian situation itself, in the overall context of Southern Africa as a whole, we would have taken one more decisive step towards identification with white supremacy, confirming the conviction of the overwhelming majority of people on the African continent and beyond that when the chips are down we are on the side of the white minority on the African continent. We would still further be destroying any remaining hope of evolutionary peaceful change in that situation. We would be underlining our involvement in a system of social order based only on ruthless racialist tyranny. This would mean that there would be very little hope of any change for the majority of people in Southern Africa short of violent revolution.
But against this analysis, the Foreign Secretary and others have argued tonight that it will be possible to reach an agreement on the basis of the five principles;>


that even if it is not likely, it is possible, and that is why he is undertaking his journey. There are two points in connection with this journey which I believe the Foreign Secretary has entirely failed to answer to date. I therefore want to put them to him again and I hope that we may possibly have an answer before the debate finishes tonight. When we are considering the five principles, there are two angles from which we can approach them. There is one of discussion in an intellectualised form of logic. There is another angle in terms of practical long-term viability and acceptability. I suggest to my hon. Friends that we on this side of the House must beware of becoming caught up at this stage in a debate about whether any particular proposed settlement which was claimed to be within the limits of the five principles would ensure majority rule in five. 10, 15 or 30 years, because I do not believe that this is the essence of the problem at all.
I believe that as we discuss the time scale within which majority rule will be achieved, the rest of the world looks at us with a good deal of interest and asks why, when we were willing to grant, on a multi-racial basis of universal suffrage, independence to Botswana, Kenya and Swaziland, we find it impossible to do this in the case of Rhodesia. The real essence of the problem which we have to accept is this. Even supposing a settlement were found which was claimed to be within the five principles, how are we going to be able to guarantee the implementation of that settlement into the future? The biggest and most obvious example which we have is the story of South Africa itself. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Asquith and the Liberal Administration of that time were absolutely convinced that they were bestowing upon South Africa a constitution which would ensure progress to majority rule and all that we are concerned about in this House tonight. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) so clearly pointed out earlier, when the white minority in that situation found its position threatened, it became politically inevitable that the constitution would be so changed that white supremacy could be protected and the white minority

enabled to continue to enjoy its privilege in that society.
Unless we have meaningful external guarantees of some kind, it is, sadly, equally inevitable that the same situation will develop in Rhodesia.
Some will say, "How are we to find an external guarantee satisfactory in these circumstances?". My conclusion, perhaps negative, is that, if we cannot find a satisfactory external guarantee, it will be infinitely better to continue the status quo, with all its inadequacies, than to indulge in what will be clearly seen by the whole world and by posterity as a shameless sell-out ill disguised by the terminology of the so-called five principles.
There is one other point on which we have not had a satisfactory answer from the Foreign Secretary. One of the most important of the five principles is that any proposed solution must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. To anyone who takes democracy seriously in this country or anywhere else in the world, it is not good enough to say that some representative of Britain will go and interview African detainees in prison to see what their views are on the proposed settlement.
To anyone who takes democracy seriously, a meaningful test of opinion must involve a free debate within Rhodesia among the people of Rhodesia as a whole on the acceptability of such terms. This requires that truly representative leaders of the African community must be free to campaign, that exiles must be able to return and take part in that campaign, that equal resources must be available, without question, to those who are opposed to the proposed terms of settlement as are available to those who favour them. Anything short of that will be seen as a sham if we have the audacity to talk of a meaningful test of the opinion and views of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
Incidentally, on that score, I was interested by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). The hon. Gentleman seemed greatly exercised and concerned about the predicament of certain Rhodesian prisoners in Zambia who had not been brought to proper trial. I join with anyone who deprecates internment of that


kind. It is something which we know in our own internal political situation here in Britain at the moment. It is a most unfortunate form of action. But, when he talks of the predicament of Rhodesians in Zambia today, why is the hon. Member for Chigwell not prepared also to look at our much more direct responsibility in this House?
Has he not heard recently of 22 Rhodesians refused the protection of the British Government in Botswana and returned to Rhodesia, where at least one has subsequently died in prison? If the hon. Member and his hon. Friends want to carry more conviction in our debates, they must speak out more honestly about the grim predicament of many Africans and others within Rhodesia who are opposed to the totalitarian rÉgime now in power there.
Now, one final point which introduces one more dimension of this matter which has not yet, I think, been mentioned. When we consider the adequacy or in-adequacy of our own policy towards Rhodesia, we should, as members of the Commonwealth, never forget the strains put upon people in other Commonwealth countries as a result of the Rhodesian crisis.
There is one country, Zambia, whatever the political faults there may be—I should be second to none in acknowledging that there are many shortcomings in Zambia's political system—which has carried, perhaps, an unrivalled burden as as result of the Rhodesian crisis. I hope that we can have assurances from the Government that they understand the situation, that they continue to understand that we have a special obligation to the people of Zambia in their economic difficulties, because of their dependence upon communications through Rhodesia. We have a special responsibility to the ordinary people of Zambia to ensure that by our economic relations with that country we are doing something to alleviate the burden for them of the illegal declaration of independence by the Smith rÉgime in Rhodesia.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: An honourable and perceptive Gentleman who spoke in the debate on the Gracious Speech remarked that we are rather prone

in the autumn to share with the House the experience we have gained in our summer travels. I am not entirely certain that the House is appreciative of that practice, but I hope that hon. Members will be patient if I draw on the experience I gained on a short visit to Rhodesia in September.
I do not propose to speculate on whether the negotiations about to be undertaken will succeed or on what point they might fail. I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) will forgive me if I do not take up all those interesting questions. I hope that there will be plenty of time this winter, if the negotiations succeed, to debate the implications of any settlement reached. Nor do I propose to offer any observations on the legal niceties of the issues involved, except to observe that unlike the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I am extremely glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be accompanying my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am certain that he will be able to bring unclouded legal judgment to bear on the problems, unworried by anything he may have said in the political context in the past.
I should like to try to stress the context in which the negotiations will take place and, in particular, to try to assess the effect that sanctions have had on Rhodesia and its leaders. The first point, which has been made by many hon. Members on both sides, is that in the short run sanctions have manifestly failed. They have not made any significant impact on the standard of living of the average white family, the average white voter, in Rhodesia. The reasons are well known. It is all too easy to pillory the South African Government or the Portuguese Government for the failure of sanctions.
I refer the hon. Member for Ports-mouth, West to the report of the United Nations committee which this year investigated the effect of sanctions. I remind him in particular that it recorded that there had been three flagrant violations of sanctions, all with the connivance of the Governments concerned. The first was shipments of wheat from Australia to Rhodesia, the second was imports of graphite from Rhodesia to the Federal Republic of Germany and the third was


imports of Rhodesian meat into Switzerland. It may well be that within a matter of weeks or months the United States will be importing chrome from Rhodesia. Therefore, the failure of the sanctions is certainly not the fault of the South African Government or the Portuguese Government, or not their fault entirely. Incidentally, I recall travelling everywhere in Rhodesia in a Japanese motor car.
The longer-term effects of sanctions are more debateable. Unlike some of my hon Friends, I think that in the long run they will hurt Rhodesia both economically and psychologically. But I doubt that the Leader of the Opposition meant to commit us to a 30 years' war. I could not support a policy based on that kind of calculation.
I think that in the long run the policy of sanctions will deprive Rhodesia of the investment capital it needs, with the result that it will not be able to create the jobs for the educated Africans which its present system is turning out. Second. I think that psychologically the attempted ostracism of Rhodesia is having a most deleterious effect on the young people there. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) detected the smell of apartheid in Rhodesia. If that smell has become more pungent over the past five years, it is precisely because we have deprived young Rhodesians of the opportunity to come here and be exposed to other ideas, other views and other policies. It is sad to note that now, when there is a faint chance that the youth of South Africa will look at their own system a little more critically—and hon. Members will recall the reception accorded to Dr. Banda at Stellenbosch—the young people of Rhodesia are slightly hardening in their attitude.
Hon. Members opposite have subjected Mr. Smith and his Government to systematic abuse. They have described him as a traitor and a person with whom it is impossible to do business. I have no doubt that in the eighteenth century just such epithets and descriptions were applied to General Washington, but ultimately we have to come to terms with the situation. The leaders of the Labour Party are not held in very great esteem in Salisbury—

Mr. Faulds: Thank God.

Mr. Rees: It is felt that they do not bring to this problem an open mind. We are not here to bandy insults or to strike moral attitudes; we are here to assist the negotiations which my right hon. Friend is about to undertake.
The reality is that the Rhodesian Front is the majority party under the Rhodesian system, whether we like it or not, and that the leader of that party is Mr. Ian Smith. If I may be allowed to paraphrase a memorable phrase of Lord Butler's, which I think he now disowns, Mr. Ian Smith is the best Rhodesian Prime Minister we have—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The best white Rhodesian Prime Minister.

Mr. Rees: The best Rhodesian Prime Minister of any kind we have, because he is the only Prime Minister with whom we can negotiate. I have no doubt that the majority party would like to dictate a solution of this problem to the Rhodesian electors, but that is not the situation which my right hon. Friend will encounter in Salisbury. We have to come to terms with the political situation there. Mr. Ian Smith is the person with whom my right hon. Friend has to negotiate, and Mr. Ian Smith has to sell to his electors any settlement which is reached. It is important that this should be remembered. This is not a colonial situation in which we can impose the solution we should like to see. This is a matter of genuine negotiation. We have not the means, nor indeed the will, to coerce the white Rhodesians, and neither has Mr. Smith the means to coerce his own electorate. We cannot expect him to capitulate, nor can he expect us to capitulate.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that in some circumstances they would prefer no settlement. Up to a point I can understand that, but we have to consider the long-term interests of the Rhodesians and it is folly to wish those negotiations to fail. It is surely better to have a settlement which will at least enable us to influence the Rhodesians. At the moment we have precious little chance of influencing them except over 30 years of destroying their economy and warping their national consciousness. If we achieve a settlement we shall be able to jettison the responsibility we have carried for far too long for actions which we


cannot control, and we shall have some chance of influencing the course of events in Salisbury.
By continuing sanctions, we ensure that Ian Smith and the Rhodesian Front continue in power. No election in Rhodesia would be fought on any issue other than sanctions. At least, if we remove sanctions after a settlement there is a chance for a domestic dialogue to develop.
Hon. Members will recall that the most realistic statesman in Central Africa, Dr. Banda, has, in the context of South African affairs, opted for dialogue rather than confrontation, and I am with him on that. Therefore, without over-much enthusiasm, I support the renewal of the sanctions Order in the hope that it will be a prelude to a settlement and, therefore, of short-lived duration.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: We have heard a good deal, not least from the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), about prospects for a settlement in Southern Rhodesia. I am one of those hon. Members who believe that no settlement is possible, or should he attempted, with this régime. We have the word of Mr. Smith himself that he does not believe in the five principles. We have the word of hon. Members opposite that they do not know what the five principles are. The five principles, beyond the most important one of unimpeded progress towards majority rule, include as the third and fourth principles that there must be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population and progress towards ending racial discrimination.
I do not wish to take more than a few minutes of the time of the House but I should like to demonstrate, if I can, that it is in no sense true in Rhodesia today that either of those provisions is being met. In fact, the situation is quite the contrary. The Rhodesians are in some difficulties, and it is just because they are in difficulty that they have been prepared at least to enter into overtures with Lord Goodman, who was sent to Salisbury. They are in difficulties not only because they have serious problems of foreign exchange and in selling the goods they produce, but also because they have a serious problem of unem-

ployment, as hon. Members opposite have acknowledged.
The Rhodesians have a further serious problem that their own young people among the white minority, amounting to one in 21 of the population, cannot stomach the regime there and are themselves emigrating. When the hon. and learned Member for Dover spoke of Mr. Smith having the support of the majority, what he meant was the white majority. The white minority—the white one in 21 of the population, who are themselves more than 75 per cent. immigrants to that country—are now embarked on a policy through the provisions, of the Land Tenure Act and other such obscene actions of making many African tribes and natives of that country virtually strangers in the land of their birth. This is not a happy augury for the journey the Foreign Secretary is about to make.
I reiterate what I said a moment ago that in my view the Rhodesians have come this far as least in their discussions purely because they are now in difficulty as a result of the sanctions imposed by the previous Government and which Her Majesty's Government tonight will renew for a further year. The hon. Members for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) both said there is no evidence that Rhodesian businessmen have been affected in any way by the application of sanctions. I am sure they know, as I know, individual white Rhodesians who have been forced to come back to this country, or who have been forced to take domicile elsewhere in Europe, as a result of the economic difficulties which have bankrupted them in Rhodesia as a direct result of sanctions. Although I personally do not rejoice at what has happened to them individually, it seems fairly obvious that the sanctions are biting and that it is just because they are biting that the Rhodesians are now proposing to enter discussions with us again.

Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman say when he last visited the African Continent or, if he has not recently visited it, where he obtained that sort of information? Is it solely from people who have come there to this country, or from the Press?

Mr. Whitehead:: As the hon. Gentleman would have heard had he been listening, I said that I had encountered
[MR. WHITEHEAD.]
businessmen who had come back to this country—I myself was last in Rhodesia some three years ago—because their businesses had been destroyed over the last three or four years as a result of the situation in which the Rhodesian economy now finds itself. Therefore, it seems evident that the sanctions, which have been derided as useless and ineffective, are having some effect, though not yet the effect I would like to have seen them have, and certainly not as swiftly as I had expected. I would like the sanctions to have been mandatory at an earlier period. I would like them to have bitten at the time when some people in the Labour Government were indulging in more rhetoric than was good for them in terms of how the sanctions would be applied and how quickly they would take effect. My simple point is that they are taking effect now.
Mr. Smith has told us that he does not believe in the five principles. He says that they are our principles and not his. Perhaps I might remind the House of what he said about his constitution—not the 1961 constitution, which some hon. Members opposite seem to believe would have led to majority rule, but his own 1969 constitution. He said:
This Government has never changed its main story from the day it started, and it has no intention of changing it in the future. Let me make all Rhodesians aware of this, for some of them have short memories.…It is a story of which we are proud, one which we have no wish to hide away. It is for this reason that we now put before you our new Rhodesian constitution to take the place of the present constitution which, however innocuous it may look at the moment, leads on relentlessly to majority rule.

Mr. Smith was at least in agreement with the lion. Member for Haltemprice in believing that the 1961 constitution, absurd as the thought would be to those who analysed that document, would lead to majority rule. That was why he got rid of it. He does not want majority rule. He ruled out of court the first of the five principles from the beginning. In that situation, it is inconceivable that on his journey to Salisbury, which might really be a journey to Canossa, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary can have any hope that there will be an honourable settlement such as I am sure he desires.
The Rhodesian Africans have been invoked a great deal tonight. We have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite how they have been affected by unemployment, and they have. The population has increased by something like 1½ million, whereas job opportunities have increased by something like 80,000. Clearly the disparity and the economic suffering is greater. However, I have not heard a single representative of that African population asking Her Majesty's Government to lift sanctions. I have not heard any African Church leader or any of those African leaders who are now out of gaol telling Her Majesty's Government that sanctions must be lifted for the sake of their people.
Perhaps I might refer briefly to one such African leader who, under the 1969 constitution, might find his way into the so-called "Progress to majority rule" Parliament which Mr. Smith is constituting. I refer to the Chief of the Tangwena tribe. In 1969, when confronted with the prospect of the expropriation of tribal lands under the Land Tenure Act of that year, the Chief of the Tangwena tribe appealed to the High Court. Under the rule of law in which lion. Gentlemen opposite place such faith, he appealed to the court to stop the eviction of his people. He received the ruling that he wanted. None the less, his people were evicted. By October, 1970, members of his tribe had been driven out of their ancestral lands.
When that kind of thing goes on, it is very difficult even for some hon. Members opposite—though I am a little alarmed at the fact that no hon. Member opposite so far has expressed himself in favour of sanctions—to believe that the third and fourth principles regarding fair treatment between the races and the removal of the present disparities can be followed.
The Tangwena tribe has been dispersed. Those people are not the terrorists, landless agitators or urbanised rootless workers who have been invoked in speeches that we have heard from hon. Members opposite. They were simply living where they and their ancestors had lived for many centuries, long before the white man came to Rhodesia and certainly before any of the present white population of Rhodesia came to those tribal lands.
When those people have been dispersed in that way, cynically, callously and without the possibility of redress, how can hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose that there can be any accommodation with the rÉgime responsible, which Mr. Garfield Todd pointed out in a letter to The Times today is itself being pressed from the Right and is itself in danger of losing by-elections to absurd Rightwing candidates with views that are even more extreme than those of its own members? How can such a regime possibly guarantee any kinds of rights to the African population of Rhodesia?
It is precisely because those rights cannot be guaranteed that I believe that the Foreign Secretary is wasting his time in going to Rhodesia and seeking to reach any kind of accommodation with a rÉgime with which we can and should have no dealings whatsoever.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes(Oldbury and Halesowcn): Having sat through the whole of the debate last year and through the whole debate this afternoon, I can only say how sorry I am to see how little the attitude of the Opposition has changed to this difficult problem over the last 12 months. To hear some of them speak, to hear some of their wilder ideas, makes me wonder whether some of us on this side of the House are not right when we think that they are the party of theory and that we are the party of flesh and blood.
I should like to speak briefly about two sectors which have not been mentioned much so far in the debate. First, the white settlers in Rhodesia and, secondly, public opinion in this country which so far no one has mentioned at all.

Mr.E.Fernyhough: What about the Common Market?

Mr. Stokes: It is important to realise what kind of people these white Rhodesian settlers are. They are not, for instance, like those people who went out from Britain in the days of the old colonial empire, did their stint abroad, and eventually retired to some suitable watering place in this country. Rhodesia is their permanent home; a home not only for them, but for their children and their children's children. They made that country. They cleared the swamps, they

mastered the tsetse fly and the mosquito, they built the roads, they built the towns. In fact, they made it such an attractive place that the Africans flocked in.
Why should they suddenly give everything up for some half-baked, untried theory of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) of "one man, one vote" of which we hear so much from hon. Gentlemen opposite? [Interruption.] I have listened without any interrupting for nearly three hours. I trust that hon. Gentlemen will listen to me for ten minutes.
Incidentally, nothing will please hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not want a settlement; they want a breakdown. If that conies about, it is the African who will suffer most.
What worries me more about this whole tragic situation is a further gap between what some hon. Gentlemen opposite say here and what the ordinary Englishman and woman in the street thinks about this subject. I do not mean the intellectuals. I do not mean people like B.B.C. producers and readers of the Observer and The Guardian. I mean ordinary people—people I am proud to represent, down to earth and patriotic people, many of them working-class people. Believe me, what we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite does not represent any of those people at all.
Furthermore, ordinary men and women in this country believe that it was a humiliation for this country, with its vast experience of Empire and Commonwealth, to have to hand over this matter to the United Nations, and that we shall have to go to what I can only call that bogus Assembly cap in hand and say, "We are sorry for what we have done", whether the negotiations succeed or fail.

Mr.DanielAwdry: Does my hon. Friend agree with the five principles, or does he think that they are half baked too?

Mr. Stokes:: I believe in the five principles. They are not in dispute. It is the unrealistic attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite with which I quarrel.
Several times during this debate—and I have listened carefully to every word that has been said—I have had to rub my eyes because, surely, from the Foreign Office we expect realism? Regretfully,
[MR. STOKES.]
perhaps, the Home Office may not always fully represent those of us for whom England is our home, but we expect better things of the Foreign Office. We applauded—and even some miserable hon. Gentlemen opposite faintly applauded—when the Russian spies were sent packing.
We loved the passage in the Gracious Speech which said:
In their external policies My Government will protect and advance the nation's interests.
That was a new note, a note that we certainly did not have from the previous Government. But now we have the imposition of sanctions once again. It has become a sort of annual charade. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House said to me last year that they could not vote in favour of sanctions again, and nor can I.
More important still when this Government came to power millions of patriotic people in this country, not least a large section of the working-class, expected a change in foreign affairs, a change to put Great Britain and her interests first. They expected, for instance, a firmer policy in Northern Ireland, and a firmer policy about the control of immigration. Now we have to fill the cup of disappointment to the brim with sanctions against Rhodesia once more. How can we go on letting down ordinary peope whom we represent in this way?
May I beg my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—and no one admires him more than I do—to look back to one of his most distinguished predecessors, Lord Castlereagh. When this country stood at the pinnacle of her fame and greatness he once had described to him some vague, extraordinarily wishy-washy idea—similar to the idea that we have heard poured forth tonight from the clever hon. Gentlemen opposite—which was called the Holy Alliance. I wonder whether the House knows how Lord Castlereagh described that set up? He said that it was a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense. That is what the ordinary Englishman thinks of the policy of sanctions today.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is always a great delight to

speak after the hon. Member for Olds-bury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) because he proves to us, if we had any doubt, that Mr. Alan Bennett draws from life and not from his imagination.
The hon. Gentleman told the House that he could not vote for sanctions to-night, but what neither he nor any of his colleagues who are against sanctions have yet told us is whether they will have the courage of their convictions and divide the House—

Mr. Fernyhough: Not on your life.

Mr. Kaufman: —or whether they have been bought off by the Foreign Secretary's expensive trip to Rhodesia next week.
There has been a great deal of confusion among hon. Gentlemen opposite —every one of whom is opposed to sanctions—about the effect of sanctions. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) told us that they are not working, the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) told us that they are working very seriously indeed. But what is quite clear is that without sanctions and without this Order, the Foreign Secretary would not be going to Salisbury on Sunday because there would be no reason for him to go or for the Rhodesians to need him there, because there would be no reason for them to try to make a settlement.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is right to go, not because I believe that a settlement is possible or desirable but so that he can see for himself that a settlement on honourable terms is not possible. It has become a clichÉ of this debate to say of the Foreign Secretary that he is a man of great honour. Nevertheless, it is a sentiment worth repeating, because it is one which most hon. Members on this side as well as on the other side hold.
The right hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that the man whom he is going to meet next week is one of the most remarkable politicians in the world today. He was described in to- day's Observer by Mr. Peter Jenkins— [An HON. MEMBER: "In The Guardian."] I am so sorry: the hon. Gentleman has obsessed me—as having a dim and devious mind. But Mr. Peter Jenkins, I am afraid, is as incompetent a journalist


as this proves. Although Mr. Ian Smith is certainly devious, although he may even be wicked, although he is certainly pursuing evil policies, the last thing that can be said about him is that he is dim.
It fell to my lot three years ago personally to see Mr. Smith in action for several days on board H.M.S. "Fearless". I have no doubt, after seeing him, that he is one of the most brilliant politicians in the world today. It is my belief that he is a politician charismatic enough in his own country to carry a deal with the Foreign Secretary based on the five principles. I very much trust that the Foreign Secretary will not heed Mr. Smith if he tells him that he cannot carry his country, because he is so masterly a politician that if he really wished to make a settlement on the five principles he could do so and could carry his country with him.
I would say to the Foreign Secretary— I trust that he will acquit me of being either impertient or patronising, since I wish to be neither—that he is going out to meet a man who is as up to date, through his intelligence services, in his assessment of British politics as any hon. Member present tonight. His remarks on H.M.S. "Fearless" about the present Prime Minister are perhaps the only remarks that I have heard from him with which I would personally agree.
He is an extraordinarily resourceful negotiator, whose techniques at that time—I am sure that they will be repeated now—are apparently to make a concession, to demand another in return and then, when that concession appears to have been made, to withdraw the first concession or to reinterpret it in such a way that it no longer stands up. He certainly did this on board H.M.S. "Fearless" and he did it particularly in relation to the second principle, which is why the second principle is of such very great importance.
He tried to get around the second principle, he tried to get around the whole question of external guarantees. I agree with all my hon. Friends that an agreement with Mr. Smith without external guarantees would be worthless; on that basis, one was never attempted on "Fearless".
The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was

willing to sign an agreement with Mr. Smith without wishing any of the detainees to be released. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Before an agreement was ready to be signed, before one had been approached, names of detainees to be released were being discussed on board that ship.

Sir F. Bennett:: I did not say anything like that. I said that as far as I knew there were no detainees or church leaders occupying cabins on either "Fearless" or "Tiger" and that any interviews the former Prime Minister may have had with such detainees must have taken place in Rhodesia before U.D.I. That is what I said and the hon. Gentleman is contradicting me.

Mr. Kaufman: We had better both look at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, when one can apologise to the other. Meanwhile, let us leave the matter in suspension.
In his statement yesterday the Foreign Secretary said:
If agreement is reached we would then have to satisfy ourselves that its terms were fully understood by the Rhodesian people as a whole and acceptable to them ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 833.]
This is an important part of the principles. It is important, too, to ask Mr. Smith what he means by this. The Foreign Secretary should not allow himself to be charmed into accepting the views of the chiefs as a good guide to the views of the people as a whole.
The right hon. Gentleman returned to electoral politics eight years ago. I hope he believes in electoral politics that an endaba of chiefs or even the House of Lords is no substitute for finding out what the people of Rhodesia, the Africans, think. I ask him to realise that he carries with him to Rhodesia his honour, as he says, but also the misgivings of a large number of people as well as the misgivings of a large number of church groups.
The question of the Land Tenure Act has been raised in this debate and I draw the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the statement reported in Monday's Guardian from Rhodesia, of Father Sean Dunne, the education secretary of the Bishops' Conference, who said:
The implementation of the Government's discriminatory policies, particularly under the


Land Tenure Act since February, has made it clear that the Government's ideology is so incompatible with the Church's teaching that further negotiations would serve no useful purpose.
He was talking about negotiations over the Land Tenure Act. It is important to bear in mind the views of the Catholic Church in Rhodesia.
There is also the view of the Methodist Church. I recently received a letter from the Methodist Church of the Manchester and Stockport District. It speaks strongly about the kind of terms which the Foreign Secretary should seek and the terms which the Methodist Church would regard as acceptable. Without delaying the House, I will quote three passages from the letter. It says:
The five principles must be accepted both in word and spirit and there is some fear that the fifth of these may be in danger of being ignored—i.e. 'Britain must be satisfied that any proposed basis for independence would be acceptable to the Rhodesian population as a whole.'
That is the one on which the right hon. Gentleman rightly lays so much stress. The letter goes on:
Any constitution must specifically guarantee basic human rights. Any negotiations should include the chosen leaders of all sections of the Rhodesian population. Christians cannot be content with a settlement in which the majority of those concerned has had no voice.
The letter, written by honourable men with honourable fears, adds:
We are fearful lest the British Government give endorsement to tyrannical and totalitarian policies.
The Foreign Secretary is going to Rhodesia—he said this in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) following his statement on Monday—carrying his own honour about which he says he cares and is right to care. However, I remind him that he also carries with him the honour of millions of people in this country who hate racism and oppression and who look to him to ensure that he upholds not only the five principles and his principles, but their principles as well.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I will not detain the House for long. I agreed very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) when he said that he regretted this de-

bate. I regret it, but for rather different reasons.
I would have imagined that all those who support the Commonwealth and what it stands for, who want tension to be removed in all parts of the world, who believe that discrimination should end and that contact is better than ostracism would with one voice wish my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary God-speed in his journey to Salisbury. I most devoutly wish him well. I hope that he will go as an emissary of this House as well as of Her Majesty's Government, because I firmly believe that he is a man of honour and integrity and will not negotiate any settlement which lets down the Rhodesian people. be they black or white.
The greatest service that this House can perform this evening is to say as little as possible. There is a time for debate; there is, indeed, sometimes a time for recrimination. But there is also a time for silence, or a time for few words, and I think that tonight is the time for few words. Debate can come later. I hope that we shall all wish the Foreign Secretary well. I hope that some hon. Members opposite will think better of much of what they have said—and that they will realise that a true settlement is in their interests, in Rhodesia's interests and in the world's interests. I my right hon. Friend will bring back

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). I want to explain why a number of my hon. Friends are very disappointed that the Foreign Secretary is going to Salisbury. It is not that we do not want a settlement in accordance with the five principles, which would lead to majority rule. We want a settlement in accordance with the five principles; I suggest that we want it more than many hon. Members opposite do. We believe, moreover, that it is absolutely inconceivable that the present illegal rÉgime, on the basis of its past policies, will suddenly do an about-turn and pursue policies resulting in majority rule, a reversal of the trends implemented under the Land Tenure Act, and all the other considerations.
I regret what the Foreign Secretary said earlier, but I believe it was his brief.


The justification for his going to Salisbury which he gave yesterday cannot but arouse suspicions, even among some of his hon. Friends. He is not able to point to a single act of policy or a single development that indicates that Mr. Smith has changed his position one iota. The Foreign Secretary says that if we get a satisfactory settlement it will make a tremendous contribution to obtaining a harmonious situation on the Continent of Africa. My hon. Friends and I also want a harmonious situation on the Continent of Africa, but we believe that that is impossible as long as there is apartheid and as long as bestial policies are pursued by Mr. Vender and Mr. Smith. We believe that if we are to achieve harmony in Southern Africa we must cast our lot wholeheartedly with the forces which are seeking to chance those regimes and those bestial policies.
Far from a settlement that the Foreign Secretary brings back being likely to improve harmony on the Continent of Africa, it is more likely to create a serious dterioration in the situation. I find it inconceivable that he will bring back a settlement that is acceptable to the African leaders or to the Africans in Africa. The Foreign Secretary should remember what happened in Zambia when he made his announcement about selling arms to South Africa. He should remember the rioting and the effect that it had on Europeans in that country. There is a real danger that if he comes hack with a settlement that is not accept- able to the African leaders European; in African countries may die. We see what is happening in Ireland and the apparently trivial reasons that are responsible.
We must put ourselves in the position of the black politican activist in Africa and try to comprehend how he feels about apartheid and how he will feel if he is faced with a situation which he interprets as a sell-out by the British Government and as further evidence that the Europeans are backing the white raises in Southern Africa.
I believe that there is absolutely no chance of a settlement being concluded which will lead in the direction of majority rule. That is why I do not want a settlement. I remember when the present Leader of the Opposition met Mr. Smith on "Tiger" and "Fearless".

I was not then a Member of the House, but in my work I found Labour people who wanted each meeting to succeed and would blame Ian Smith if it failed, and Conservatives who wanted it to succeed and would blame my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition if it failed. I believe now that there was then no possibility of Mr. Smith doing an about-turn and that those who support him had no intention of letting it happen.
There are two possible results of the Foreign Secretary's visit. He may fail in the eyes of hon. Members opposite. He may return and say, "I tried but I am afraid that Mr. Smith is not prepared to move. I am sorry, but vie must accept that we cannot got the changes we want." I hope that that is what will happen, but there has been some discussion whether in that case we should pursue sanctions or what course we should follow.
I believe that we should continue sanctions. They are affecting the Rhodesian economy. If that is disputed and some hon. Members opposite say that they are irrelevant, I would still pursue sanctions because they do not cost us all that much and it is important that the black Africans should not come to the conclusion that the British people are only on the side of the whites. I am sure that hon. Members opposite do not want to drive the black African, further into the arms of the Russians or the Chinese. If, however, the black Africans become convinced that Britain is supporting the white nations it means, that more and more moderate African leaders will turn to those two Powers.
Alternatively, the Foreign Secretary may succeed in the eyes of hon. Members opposite. Let us suppose that he comes back with this good settlement— which, incidentally, I think is what will harlot a. That will mean that either he or Mr. Smith will have moved. It may well be that the Foreign Secretary corn- promises on the five principles. I hear the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) say that the Foreign Secretary ought to do so, and I believe that to he the view supported by the vast majority of hon. Members opposite. I do not think that it is the view of the Foreign Secretary, or the official view of the British Government.
[MR. STRANG.]
But let us suppose that Mr. Smith moves, and that the Foreign Secretary comes back with a settlement which, on paper at least, indicates that Mr. Smith has not only gone back on many of his statements but has agreed to repeal the Land Tenure Act and, perhaps, has agreed to very substantial changes in the constitution. Here, let me say that I hope that we are not negotiating on the 1969 constitution: all these things are based on the 1961 constitution.
Hon. Members have asked how, if Mr. Smith makes this fantastic somersault and we get such a settlement, we will guarantee that settlement. One suggestion is an external guarantee, a military presence, or a treaty under which Britain, if the Rhodesian Government introduced retrogressive legislation, would have the right to intervene. None of those is likely to be adopted. It seems that the only guarantee which we would have against this reversal would be. as one of the principles spelled out, a very substantial and massive enhancement of the status of the Africans. We have to have a situation in which a very substantially increased proportion of the electorate are Africans. If all Africans who had two years' secondary education were allowed to vote, they would be in the majority.
It is worth repeating what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), that if we are to improve the political status of the Africans and to consult them about the settlement we are trying to obtain, we must have a general election and allow the true African leaders to campaign in a proper election. We cannot just select those who we wish to consult. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) went to greet lengths to tell us of those African leaders who were not representative of African opinion and whom we should not be consulting.

Mr. Wall: A section of them.

Mr. Strang: I suggest that the hon. Member for Haltemprice wants to select those whom he wishes to consult.

Mr. Wall: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I suggested that the two leaders in

detention represented a section of African opinion but that the elected African Members of Parliament were representative of a far larger section of African opinion.

Mr. Strang: I make the point to the hon. Member that history has shown time and again that the men who have gone to jail for their political principles, and who have the support of the vast majority of the politically articulate section of the population, are the men who ultimately command the support of the people when there are free elections and a general principle of free franchise.
In conclusion, I believe that we shall have a sell out. I have always believed this. It seems that it would be quite out of character for this Government to maintain sanctions throughout their life and to maintain the policies pursued by the previous Government.

Mr. Idris Owen: Would the hon. Member have accepted the terms if the leader of his party had returned after negotiating with the same Mr. Smith? Would he have accepted them as a result of the "Fearless" talks if the Leader of the Opposition had come to some agreement with Mr. Smith, the same Mr. Smith that the hon. Gentleman does not trust at present?

Mr. Strang: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, but I made my position clear. I said that I felt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was wrong to negotiate with Mr. Smith when he did. I said so at the time. We should have sanctions for the foreseeable future.

Mr.JohnBiffen: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He talks about sanctions in the foreseeable future. But if the purpose of the sanctions is to induce a change in the political stance of Rhodesia, does he not foresee an escalation from sanctions to something rather more rigorous?

Mr. Strang: I would not be dogmatic about whether sanctions are likely to achieve a political change. Nothing I have said implies that. I say that sanctions are of tremendous symbolic significance for Africans and their leaders on


the African continent. These factors are important. All hon. Members may not think so. But if we get rioting in Zambia similar to that we have already had, hon. Members will realise that these factors are important. I have always said, and

still do, that we shall have a sell out. I hope fervently that we shall not have a sell out but that the Foreign Secretary will return and say that he has tried but failed.

Hon. Members: Shame.

10.14 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: I have said a hundred times in the last six years that the person in the Conservative Cabinet most likely to achieve success in negotiations with Mr. Ian Smith would be my right hon. Friend the present incumbent of the office of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
Whereas many hon. Members opposite have sought to doom my right hon. Friend's mission to failure, I take exactly the opposite view. I fervently wish my right hon. Friend success in reaching a compromise solution. When I say "compromise" I do not intend to imply, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Fast (Mr. Strang) suggested, a sell-out. There is a tremerdcus difference between a compromise and a sell-out.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: what is it?

Sir G. Nabarro: I shall explain it. The hon. Gentleman has not been in his place the whole evening.

Mr Skinner: In the Tea Room.

Sir G. Nabarre: That may be so. I have been in the Chamber, listening.
The is a tremendous difference between a sell-cut and a compromise. We are faced with a position which is nearly intractable. It is six years tomorrow since Mr. Ian Smith seized power— illegally seized power, I agree, but he seized power. Today he is in the position of a dictator, evidently impervious to the effects of sanctions.
I believe that the only hope is to reach with Mr. Smith the highest common factor of agreement in the interests of the African majority in Rhodesia. of the white minority in Rhodesia, and of the British Government. It is useless for both sides in the House to pay lip-service to the five principles and then for one patty to say in the next breath, "These principles are utterly unchangeable. They must be interpreted literally to the last letter. Every "i" must be dotted and every "t" must be crossed. We cannot change anything in the five principles".
On that basis it is utterly impossible for this wretched situation—I call it "wretched" advisedly; most Conservatives consider it to be wretched—ever to be brought to a solution. There are 240,000 white people in Rhodesia. There are 5 million Africans. What is more significant, the African population is increasing at an annual rate approximately equal to the present white population. This means that in the course of the next 10 or 15 or 20 years it is probable—one cannot be exact about it—that the black population of Rhodesia will outnumber the white population by 80 to 1.
I should not hive thought that any hon. Member on this side, however Rightwing his views may be, would suggest that a tiny minority of one-eightieth part can rule a huge majority of that sort without a broader basis of suffrage being achieved, if not total universal suffrage.
It is for that reason that I find the first of the five principles—unimpejed progress towards majority rule somewhat unreal. There will be majority rule, anyway, within 10 or 15 years. The problem surely is how to bring about majority rule peacefully and without widespread bloodshed. It is in pursuit of that principle that I address my comments to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary tonight.
I therefore I rope that I shall not be castigated in any quarter of the House when I use the word "compromise" instead of "sell-out". I do not want a sell-out in any circumstances, but I do want a compromise solution in the interests of the three bodies of people that I have mentioned.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If I were as assured as is the hon. Gentleman that in the foreseeable future there could be majority rule in Rhodesia, whatever the terms of the compromise, I would be much mane happy about the visit of the Secretary of State. Why has it not happened in South Africa over a period of 70 years when it has had minority rule? Why has it not come to pass in South Africa if it is to happen in Rhodesia?

Sir G. Nabarro: I think that the operative word here is "foreseeable". I have no means whatever of interpreting "foreseeable". Neither has the hon. Gentleman. It may be five, 10 or 20


years. It depends on a number of factors over many of which we have no control. The hon. Gentleman asks why it has not happened in South Africa. I will tell him why it has not happened in South Africa. The answer surely is that the African section of the population in South Africa do not wish to rule the entire country on a one-man one-vote basis. The Transkei establishment are working tolerably satisfactorily. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Oh, yes. I have said over and over again, in South Africa, in other parts of Africa, all over this country, that I myself abhor racial segregation. But that does not mean that I believe in handing over the rule of those countries to a majority which in many instances is not immediately fit to rule. It is a question of time and evolution—social evolution particularly.
I believe there will be majority rule in Rhodesia in the passage of years, though I have no means of interpreting "foreseeable". Neither can I look into the future with any accuracy in South Africa. But of one thing I am utterly convinced. A policy of sanctions or any repressive economic measures, whether against South Africa or against Rhodesia, I am quite certain is doomed to failure from the start. I have in two General Elections said—and I have scrupulously honoured my undertakings—that I would never vote for sanctions against Rhodesia. It was Baldwin—and I have sat in Baldwin's constituency wholly or in part for the last 21 years—who said, in the context of Abyssinia, that sanctions lead inevitably to war. That has always been my view. But it might be added that sanctions have never succeeded against any nation in the world.
Although we may quibble about the efficacy of the policy of sanctions adopted nearly six years ago, of one thing we may all be quite certain—that whereas the Rhodesians are suffering some relatively minor inconvenience today, there are plenty of all types of raw materials, manufactures and goods of every description. The question of petrol was raised right at the beginning of the controversy about sanctions, but Rhodesia, although she put on a petrol rationing scheme for the first year or two, quickly found that she could abandon it. There are, and have been in the last five years, more motor cars on the race courses of Rhodesia than we

see on the clowns at Epsom on Derby Day relative to the numbers attending the two types of races. The petrol, the raw materials, the manufactures and everything that Rhodesia needs for her economy, save only foreign currency, with which I will deal in a moment, flow— [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would attend our debates instead of coming in and bawling at me. He really is the most ignorant Member of the House of Commons. I hope that he may shortly return either to the Tea Room or to the wet canteen, having regard to the hour.
I want to deal with sanctions a little more deeply. All these goods and services which have flowed over the frontier from South Africa are either South African in origin or from Western Germany, or France or Japan, or the United States of America, and there is no evidence that they are likely to cease at an early date
It is, therefore, an utterly forlorn hope for hon. Members opposite to talk about sanctions biting in the future, as the hon. Member for Yen-le (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) did. In my opinion, there is no hope whatever of the efficiency of sanctions increasing.
It is interesting to note what Mr. Ian Smith said in the latest interview with him reported in one of our reputable journals, Industrial Management, published a couple of days ago. Mr. Ian Smith says, in banner headlines—though, of course, he did not insert the head lines—
Our position gets stronger.
I shall not weary the House by reading many of his statements, for, admittedly, they may be in the nature of propaganda. So they may be, but all the evidence — I endeavoured to demonstrate this earlier in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for York—is that the Rhodesian economy has grown at an average of 6 per cent. per annum measured in terms of the expansion of the gross national product during the last three years. That is clear from all the evidence available to us from all sources, and, alter all, that rate of growth is three or four times the rate of growth of our national income here in Britain. It may be argued that the Rhodesians started from a lower base than we did. I agree. but it is still evidence that their economy is growing quite fast.
[SIR G. NABARRO.]
The kind of trade and business which we are losing today is extremely valuable, especially as we have a grave unemployment problem in this country. It is no joke that there are 924,000 unemployed today. It is a situation which my right hon. Friends have frequently spoken of as intolerable. It will become even more intolerable if we fail to grasp certain opportunities available to us for filling with work factories which are at present running at a good deal less than full capacity.
This is the sort of example which I cite to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It comes from the issue of Industrial Management, in which the interview with Mr. Smith is published—
During the next three years, the Rhodesian railways will need a hefty £33 million for new rolling stock and another rail link with South Africa out of a total public sector budget of £128 million. Once, Britain would have been the obvious source for this equipment. Now it is reliably reported that Rhodesia is buying locomotives from Nest Germany's Siemens company, manufactured in South Africa. Young"—
an official of the Rhodesian Ministry of Finance—
maintains a stony silence when tackled on this, the accepted way of refusing to be pumped on certain areas of 'classified' information.

Mr. George Cunningham: Even if there is a settlement with Rhodesia, it is extremely unlikely that our trade with Rhodesia will be restored, as my hon. Friend the Member for York pointed out, because what the Rhodesians think of hon. Members on the Government side is not much more than they think of us on this side. Also, will the hon. Gentleman face the undoubted prospect of the losses which we should endure throughout the rest of Africa if we reached a settlement with Rhodesia which, whatever might be its merits, Africans regarded as a sell-out?

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not think that everything is black and white in trade matters. Of course, if a settlement is reached we shall not overnight restore the whole of our trade with Rhodesia as it existed before 1965. But we shall restore a part of it, and because of the links of race, the links of culture, the fact that a large number of people in

Rhodesia in command of purchasing are British in origin, we shall, I believe, rapidly restore our position.
The point which I make, partly in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, is this. Our foreign competitors —the Japanese, the Germans and the French—are taking all our trade today. The Rhodesians are getting everything they require, save only foreign exchange. They are borrowing, making good their needs, at very high interest rate from South Africa, and in part measure from Portugal. Sanctions have not succeeded. They cannot succeed in the future. That is the opinion of practically every business executive in Britain today, watching the disappearance of our traditional trade with Rhodesia. I want to sec that trade restored. Of course, it will take several years.

Mr. Faulds: How does the hon. Gentleman manage to reconcile the arguments he is making with the annual report of the Associated Chamber of Commerce in Salisbury, which reads:
The position has now been reached when commerce can no longer service the demands of the other sectors of the economy, and the situation with regard to stocks and replacement machinery is now extremely serious."?
How does he reconcile his arguments with the statements of the business gentlemen in Salisbury?

Sir G. Nabarro: I cannot do so, because we are quoting from different sources. What is available to the hon. Gentleman in the Library of the House, from every record available from all sorts of impartial sources, is the steady growth of the Rhodesian economy and the fact that the Rhodesians are not short of any manufactures or raw materials, other than —if we can call it a commodity—capital for investment purposes.

Mr. Faulds: That is not what they say.

Sir G. Nabarro: What I should like my right hon. Friend to seek in Rhodesia is a rapprochement. He cannot possibly succeed by absolute adherence literally to the five principles, notably the first. There will have to be some compromise from both sides. I hope that if my right hon. Friend secures agreement on those lines the Opposition will not be either bigoted or dogmatic on the matter. It is a question of taking up slack in our factories here and restoring our trade. That is the


most important thing of all, given no sell-out on the five principles, only compromise as to the first.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point that, even supposing his argument is true, the corresponding loss of trade with other countries in Africa would probably vastly exceed any gain.

Sir G. Nabarro: I doubt that. I do not want to go over the whole gamut of African States—Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and the remainder—[Interruption.]— Ghana and Nigeria and the former French colonies, old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all.

Mr. Faulds: There is more to Africa than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.

Sir G. Nabarro: I was talking about the former British and French colonies. I could go wider. [Interruption.] I do wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would cause the unruly Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) to stop bawling at me from a sedentary position.
I doubt very much whether our principal customers in Africa, such as Nigeria, Ghana and Zambia, would in any way diminish their trade with us if they saw that the British Foreign Secretary had honestly and sincerely negotiated with the Rhodesians the highest common factor of agreement, having regard to all the intractable circumstances to which I have referred. Only the bigots will deny my right hon. Friend good wishes for his success. I wish him fervently and deeply sincerely success in this vitally important mission.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: We listened with interest, as always, to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who spent a great deal of time explaining the difference between compromise and sell-out. The result was that we see that his compromise would represent Britain's sell-out. Although he proclaimed an interest in the five principles, he hardly referred to any of them. It seemed to me that his fidelity to them was very similar to that of Ian

Smith. Ian Smith had this to say about them, and this was partially quoted by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of the debate:
I don't believe in any of these principles, I don't believe they are principles in the first place:
That is a view that would he acceptable to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes)—
these were laid down by the British Government, and the position is that we have tried to meet them and help them to produce a constitution which would satisfy their principles. But they are not our principles.
In Bulawayo in 1970 Mr. Smith was asked when he foresaw a phased movement towards majority rule, and his answer was in one word, "Never". So much for Ian Smith's belief in the five principles.
What is far more important is what has happened in the last few years in the legislative process and in the daily practice in relation to racial discrimination in Rhodesia. Had I been in the House before 1970 I should not have welcomed the discussions between my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister and Ian Smith, but a great deal has happened since 1968. The legislative situation has changed dramatically. This is rarely referred to by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. There has been the Land Tenure Act of 1970, and I asked this Question of the Foreign Secretary:
… how many Africans in Southern Rhodesia have been removed by the illegal regime from land of which they were in lawful occupation pursuant to the provisions of the Land Tenure Act.
The reply from the Under-Secretary of State was:
Approximately 1,800 members of the Tangwena Tribe were compulsorily resettled under the Land Tenure Act. Other similar evictions may have occurred, but no accurate figures are available.
There has been a dramatic change since 1968. This occurred after the only remedy available to the Africans was sought, namely, an appeal to the courts, which they won. Immediately after, they were none the less evicted from their land, their only means of livelihood.
I asked a Question in the House about detention without trial:
How many Africans in Rhodesia are held in detention without trial by the illegal regime?

[MR. CLINTON DAVIS.]
The Under-Secretary of State said:
I understand that the latest figure available is about 100."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1971; Vol. 825, c. 56.]
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not care. They never protest about this sort of thing. This shows their utter cant and hypocrisy when they proclaim fidelity to the five principles. We have heard no protests about the closing down of Cold Comfort Farm, or the deportation of Guy Clutton-Brock. We have heard nothing about the unlawful detention without trial of Didymus Mutasa, or the daily harassing of representative African opinion. What have we heard from any hon. Gentleman opposite about the proposed removal from the Epworth Mission of 3,500 Africans? One word—

Mr. Wall: Yes.

Mr. Davis: Yes, that is the word.

Mr. Wall: The hon. Gentleman is being most unfair since several members on this side of the House mentioned the matter. If he looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I referred to this matter and to the Chishawasha mission lands.

Mr. Davis: I must have missed the hon. Gentleman's contribution during the time when I was having something to eat. If I misrepresented him I apologise, but I heard no protests from the other side of the House about this matter when I was in the Chamber. I did not hear about the 1,000 registered African tenants who were to be removed from the mission lands to which he has just referred. All this seems totally inconsistent with the five principles in which Ian Smith is now supposed suddenly to proclaim his belief. What has happened is a constant and quite consistent erosion of the African position in Rhodesia, politically and in every other respect.
I should like to know whether the Foreign Secretary will insist at the beginning of these discussions, on an undertaking that this racialist legislation is to be repealed, because he made no comment whatever about that matter today. I find it difficult to understand how against this background any element of trust is to be reposed in the sort

of people with whom he is now proposing to enter into negotiation.
The truth of the matter is that it is a small, white racialist minority that governs Rhodesia at present. Any African contribution at all is simply by way of sufferance on the part of the white community. This is true in government, in education, in determining where people live and work and the way in which they are treated, and even in regard to what they can say. This is all determined by the "goodwill" of the white minority.
The inhabitants have to suffer censorship and detention without trial, in total repudiation of the rule of law, because after 30 days' detention without trial they can be rearrested—[Interruption.] I condemn it in Northern Ireland as I condemn it in Rhodesia.
We are told by the Smith regime that one day perhaps when the Africans are able to contribute more by way of income tax they will then earn the right to greater representation in the Rhodesian Parliament. But at the moment they pay only 0·5 per cent. of the total income tax recovered by the Government there and will have to wait until they are paying 25 per cent. of the total income tax before they can get a modicum of reform. Does the other side find this an acceptable principle— if one can dignify such a policy by using such a term? How can the Africans advance to that degree under the repressive regime we are not witnessing?

Mr. Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the prerogative of possessing all these nice qualities reposes only with the Opposition? Does he also think that the countries surrounding Rhodesia are examples of complete sweetness and light? He does not believe that one should refuse to have dealings with those countries because their internal policies may not be all that is desired. If he claims to be talking in terms of logic, he surely must pursue a logical argument.

Mr. Davis: The distinction between repression elsewhere and in Rhodesia is that we still have a certain responsibility in Rhodesia which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to recognise.

Mr. Peter Rees: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how we are to exercise that responsibility if we are not on terms with the present Rhodesian Government?

Mr. Davis: We have a right to administer our responsibilities by continuing the sanctions, by continuing to recognise world opinion, and by continuing to recognise Britain's interests in a wider African context—which is something hon. Members fail totally to understand. What will be the cost of a squalid deal with Rhodesia? It will produce great enmity from the rest of African opinion. I care about it, if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not.
I was discussing the Land Apportionment Act, which determines how Africans live. They cannot live in town centres. They can work there, but they have to live outside. Hon. Gentlemen opposite find that acceptable, especially the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes), the reader of Titbits. As for education, the Smith rÈgime proclaims proudly that it is spending some-what more on African education than on European education. But there are ten times the number of Africans at school. Yet the expenditure per capita is ten times higher on Europeans. All this represents the obvious incongruity of the situation and the impossibility of coming to any sort of terms with the Smith regime which can be construed in the least way as being honourable.
Sanctions may not have been the success that one would have hoped. But there have been interesting testimonies from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Some have said the sanctions are endangering the Rhodesian economy. Others have said that the Rhodesian economy is prospering. We are not sure what is the true position. I believe that sanctions have had a considerable effect, as the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South conceded. Yet, while some hon. Gentlemen say that sanctions are not affecting the economy and that there has been an expansion of some 6 per cent., why is it that Africans have not shared in that growing prosperity? They have not, and they will not be permitted to do so.
I believe that the Government's negotiations are doomed to failure in every

respect. I cannot see how African opinion can be consulted properly at the moment, but if it could be I believe fervently that it would not accept any shoddy compromise. The Africans' aspirations are those of us all. They want a square deal. They want to be able to bring up their children in decent surroundings. They want a decent life. They want to enjoy reasonable health and to see their children well educated. They want reasonable work opportunities. They want opportunities for political advancement. I suggest that there is overwhelming evidence that all those aspirations are denied under the Smith fascist rÈgime
It is an odious rÈgime. In my view. we made a mistake in the first place by not seeking to bring it down with force But if, coupled with the deal that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did on South Africa, they seek now to come to a shabby compromise, deluding the British people that they are sticking to the five principles when they are doing nothing of the sort, they will produce such enmity and hostility in Africa that Britain's long-term interests will he destroyed. Africans are not prepared to allow their brethren constantly to he shut out from the aspirations to which I have referred. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should remember that when they talk about negotiations.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I support the continuance of sanctions at the present time—[Hors. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and, without wishing to be associated with any of the humbug which has been uttered by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, I wish my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary success in his mission.
The events in Rhodesia in 1965 were a great tragedy, because they put back the progress of Rhodesia towards fully responsible self-government under the British Crown and put the government of that country into the hands of people who appear to have no faith in the ability of Africans to govern themselves properly. That is why they speak now of keeping the government of Rhodesia in responsible hands, by which one may perhaps fairly suppose they mean white hands.
[MR. STANBROOK.]
In that attitude, they make a fundamental mistake. Nobody learns the art of government without training or experience. The Africans of Rhodesia are entitled to a share in the government of their country. It may be an act of faith to grant them a share in Rhodesia at the present time, but sooner or later the 5 per cent. of the population of Rhodesia who now have a direct share in their own government will have to make that act of faith towards the other 95 per cent.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can persuade Mr. Smith, by accepting a constitution based upon the five principles, to show vision and confidence in his own people, both white and black.

10.53 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I am glad that the Foreign Secretary had just one speech which supported him on the Order, because in all the other speeches by hon. Gentlemen opposite they have said either that they could not find it possible to vote for the Order or, indeed, that they might find it necessary to vote against it. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Not true."] One hon. Gentleman—I think it was the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—said that he could not bring himself to vote for the Order and would have to consider whether he should vote against it. That is the business of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me not interfere with the problem of how they behave in their own Division Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Cormack: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. Lady to make such gross misrepresentations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That is not a point of order, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mrs. Hart: Not misrepresentations; question marks.
The Foreign Secretary must have been glad to have some words of comfort from behind him.
As has been made clear by my hon. Friends, two issues arise in the debate. One is sanctions policy and the Order itself; the other is the Foreign Secretary's journey to Salisbury.
On the degree of effectiveness of sanctions, it would be wrong to claim either

too much or too little. This has emerged in the debate from the differing interpretations which have come from right hon. and hon. Members. Of course there have been evasions. There have been evasions right from the beginning. Nobody has ever been in any doubt about that. The whole difficulty of the sanctions exercise right from the beginning was that Rhodesia had an unholy alliance with South Africa and Portugal which meant, for example, that South Africa needed to increase her imports of oil by only 5 per cent. to enable her to supply oil to Rhodesia. The whole problem has been that we have been confronted with an economic alliance which has meant that the sanctions exercise has been extremely difficult to operate.
We shall not get anywhere in attempting to interpret the present Rhodesian situation if we imagine that it is easy to operate the sanctions policy, or that it is completely successful in its operation, but I quote some details, not from Mr. Ian Smith's own propaganda on his own behalf, nor from any of the businessmen who have come back from Rhodesia, nor, for that matter, from businessmen in Rhodesia, but from Rhodesia's own economic survey for last year, the official publication of the Rhodesian rÉgime.
During 1971 the Rhodesian balance of payments fell from a surplus of 21 million dollars to a surplus of 0·8 million dollars, and one knows—and this has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite— that there are considerable foreign exchange difficulties and a shortage of capital in Rhodesia. One knows, too, that there are irritating shortages of, for example, tractors and railway stock. It is known also—and this appears in the official Rhodesian economic survey—just how great is the problem of unemployment there, to which reference has been made by my hon. Friends. In the last 10 years 100,000 new jobs have been created for Africans, but well over 1 million young Africans have reached working age, and there is every indication that the Smith regime is more frightened of the consequences of African unemployment than it is of any organised opposition by some of the freedom fighters.

Captain Walter Elliot: Surely the right hon. Lady is making a fundamental mistake? Sanctions were


the means to an end, the end being to exert pressure on the regime which had declared independence so that another Government would emerge and see sense. In fact, the effect has been to unite the white population under Smith, and in that respect sanctions have been a complete failure.

Mrs. Hart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had waited a moment he would have heard me give some interesting information about the state of opinion in Rhodesia and about the confidence of the white people of Rhodesia in their own society.?
I quote from The Cape Argus of March of this year of a survey of white Rhodesian sixth formers asking their intentions about their future in their country. Asked if they intended to leave the country, half said that they did. Of these, half said that they did not intend to return. The survey was carried out by a Salisbury educationist and among the reasons given, were that there was an air of repression there, that Rhodesia was too insular, that there was no scope in Rhodesia in advanced technology, and that the future depended too much on the political situation.
The University of Rhodesia carried out a survey among 16 white schools in Rhodesia. The Rand Daily Mail said that it found an overriding desire, particularly among the more intelligent children, to leave the country.
They want to leave home, parents, Rhodesian society, the lot.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite found that half the sixth formers in Britain, and the most intelligent ones at that, intended to leave this country because the political situation was similar to that in Rhodesia, and was intolerable, would they say that that was indicative of confidence in the future of this country?

Mr. Wall: Would the right hon. Lady think back about three years when a similar survey was held in this country by one of the national Press, which showed that over 50 per cent. of the under-I8 age group said that they would emigrate from this country under her Government?

Mrs. Hart: I remember the survey and I remember the newspaper. My reference is to an academic survey carried out by educationists—

Sir G. Nabarro: rose—

Mrs. Hart: No, I will not give way now. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman will want to interrupt me later and I will give way to him then.
We have to accept that sanctions have created some difficulties in Rhodesia, that there are some difficulties which are making Mr. Smith readier to talk to the Foreign Secretary next week than he has been for some time. I do not think there is evidence that the Rhodesian economy is happily surviving sanctions policy. However, there is no evidence that sanctions policy is destroying the Rhodesian economy. The evidence lies somewhere in between, and that is sufficient argument for continuing sanctions.
The Foreign Secretary has not told us. and I doubt whether the Minister of State will tell us, whether he himself believes that his journey is a hopeful one, or whether, in his own mind, it is a necessary exercise to satisfy the hon. Gentlemen who are present in the Chamber on his own side—the eager appeasers in his own party. We do not know, and he is not likely to tell us, what the Prime Minister's purpose is in all this—whether or not there is a genuine belief that an honourable settlement is possible.
It is possible, of course, that the Foreign Secretary could be going to Salisbury whether or not he believes an honourable settlement to be possible—because in the one case he has to go through the exercise and in the other he has convinced himself that it may be possible. If it is the former, if he is going through a political exercise for the sake of his own party, then we shall await his return and we shall look forward to his explanation that it was not possible for him to find any basis for agreement with Mr. Smith which satisfied the five principles.
If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman has convinced himself that there is real hope of an honourable settlement, we must remind him before he leaves, as my hon. Friends have done tonight, of some of the key points which we hope will remain at the front of his mind all the time he is in Salisbury
The first point is that were a settlement to satisfy the five principles Mr. Smith would have to put the clock back on everything that he has done since U.D.I.
[MRS. HART.]
He would have to abandon the 1961 Constitution—certainly not take it as a base for any future negotiations. He would have to abandon the Land Tenure Act and the body of legislation which has taken apartheid many steps forward since the declaration of U.D.I. In view of what Mr. Smith has said—after all, he has said that there can be no going back—I cannot think that this is possible, but perhaps the Foreign Secretary thinks that it is.
Second, on the test of opinion, which is necessary in terms of the five principles, it is extremely disturbing to read the accounts in the Press this morning, apparently based on what the Foreign Secretary is believed to have said to his own party last night—that there had been some measure of agreement reached between the Government and Mr. Smith on the way that the test of opinion could be carried out and on a six-week period during which opinion could be tested.
The only possible basis for any test of opinion in accordance with the five principles is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said, that all the political prisoners must be released, that they must be totally free to campaign and that there must be a total lifting of censorship so that they may campaign. Anything short of that—and it must obviously take longer than six weeks—could not pretend to be a test of opinion in Rhodesia. [Interruption.] It is obvious that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have reservations about what I am saying.

Sir G. Nabarro: I certainly have.

Mrs. Hart: Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman has been absolutely frank with the House about this.

Sir G. Nabarro: As always.

Mrs. Hart: His frankness tonight was in contrast with the remarks of some of his colleagues. He said frankly that he wants a compromise. He does not like the phrase "sell-out" but he wants an end to the situation.
There is no longer very much hope that one can prevent Rhodesia from being sucked into the Southern African situation, dominated by South Africa. Indeed, she is already there. That there-

fore presents a situation in which one must be very careful in doing anything based on a belief that it is even possible for the white minority in Rhodesia not to move faster and further towards apartheid. [Interruption.] They are bound to do so.
Not only in this House, among my hon. Friends, but outside, in Britain, Africa, within the United Nations and throughout the world, the Foreign Secretary starts from a base of mistrust and doubt because of his readiness to sell arms to South Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This is the Southern African situation—because of the British Government's actions on South-West Africa at the U.N. and because of the Government's apparent readiness to isolate themselves on a number of these issues with South Africa and Portugal.
For this reason the right hon. Gentleman starts on a considerable basis of mistrust. He should not underestimate the degree to which he will have to convince us that anything with which he comes back from Salisbury is honourable enough to satisfy my hon. Friends.

11.8 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Gedher): We are tonight debating the renewal of the Order on sanctions, though the debate has, of course, taken place against the background of the impending visit to Salisbury of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. In these circumstances it is natural that hon. Members on both sides of the House should seek to give him advice in relation to his visit. I have no doubt that he will give the full degree of weight to the various speeches that have been made that he deems appropriate in each case.
Hon. Members have also sought to put down markers and to give warnings of the likely consequences of failing to observe any of them. I am sure it will be recognised that it would be impossible for me to go into any detail in replying to the debate tonight or to comment explicitly on the various proposals and suggestions that have been made. To do so would put my right hon. Friend in an intolerable position on his visit.
What my right hon. Friend has made clear, and what was emphasised in the Queen's Speech, was that any settlement


arrived at would have to conform with the five principles. Those principles have been common ground up to now on both sides of the House—or at least among most hon. Members. It is worth remembering that we on this side of the House supported the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he sought to achieve agreement on the basis of those principles both on "Tiger" and on "Fearless". The fact that he failed to secure agreement on either occasion was a matter of deep regret to hon. Members on both sides. Had he succeeded, I am sure that his success would have been as warmly welcomed by my hon. Friends as by his own supporters. In the same way, I am confident that if my right hon. Friend is able to achieve success in this visit it will receive widespread approval both in this House and outside in this country.
There are those who will not welcome any agreement. Some hon. Members have made their position on this clear tonight. Of course emotions run strongly in the House on this matter, and they run strongly in many other places, both in Africa and in the United Nations. But I am disturbed when I find some hon. Members opposite who are apparently anxious even to prevent an agreement. That anxiety has been made clear by several hon. Members tonight. Many of them have paid tribute to my right hon. Friend's integrity, but have gone on to question it in the next sentence by implying that he will fail to stand by the principles.
Some hon. Members go further and try to bring in additional matters beyond the principles as we understand them. They have done so tonight. Some have already done so in the Press. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was one of the signatories of a letter in The Times on Monday. I do not think that he was the author, but he was one of the signatories. That letter stated:
Two requirements are essential for a settlement. The first is that genuine representatives of the African people participate in negotiations.…Secondly, a future Government of Rhodesia must be elected on the basis of universal suffrage. We call on the British Government to proceed on the basis of these two essential requirements".
Both points go far beyond anything that they themselves asked when they were in office. The letter says:

Some of us have long considered the five principles inadequate… .
I do not know whether "long" means that they considered them inadequate at the time when they were negotiating on the basis of those principles, but we have of course seen changes on the part of the party opposite on a number of other matters.

Mr. Healey: I know that the right hon. Member does not want to misrepresent me. Can he tell the House how we can have majority rule without universal suffrage?

Mr. Godber: Certainly we can have it without universal suffrage. I understand that that was the basis of the proposals which his right hon. Friend put forward on both "Tiger" and "Fearless" It seems that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the proposals that his right hon. Friend put forward.
An agreement based on the five principles may prove impossible to achieve, but do not let us set out deliberately to make agreement impossible from the start. What is at stake in these negotiations more than anything else is the future conditions in which the African majority in Rhodesia will live. That fact has not been sufficiently taken into account by hon. Members opposite. The position of those people has deteriorated since the efforts made by the Leader of the Opposition to secure an agreement. If, unhappily, my right hon. Friend should not succeed the prospects of an eventual alignment of policies between Rhodesia and South Africa become an even clearer possibility.
The five principles must be our sheet anchor in any negotiations, but anyone who puts forward much tougher conditions, or says that we should not seek to negotiate at all, should face squarely what this means to the African majority in Rhodesia. If we all genuinely want to help the African people living in Rhodesia, we must all wish "Godspeed" to my right hon. Friend on his journey
That is why I take issue with a number of hon. Members opposite, because they really have not faced up to this problem. It seemed to me that their attitude is that they would rather the attempt failed, because they do not want to have anything to do with Mr Smith. and want to allow sanctions to continue


[MR. GODBER.]
in a way they hope will eventually lead to some change; but they do not face up to the fact that all the time the position of these people is deteriorating and all the time the position of Rhodesia is moving closer to that of South Africa.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godber: No, I have not very much time, and as a number of hon. Members seem anxious to intervene to give way to one of them would be invidious.
There are those hon. Members who have said tonight, and it will be on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, that they would prefer not to have an agreement—

Mr. Faulds: That is the point.

Mr. Godber: Indeed, it is the point, and it is the point I am making, so there is no dispute that this is the position taken by hon. Members opposite. I say that it is a false position, because it does not take into account the real needs of the African majority.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Godber: No, I do not have a great deal of time.
As to the five principles themselves, I have listened with great interest to the comments and interpretations which have been placed on them in the debate, but I do not think that any good purpose would be served by any detailed comments I could make on them. I want to remind hon. Members on both sides that Lord Goodman, with the distinguished team of officials who have accompanied him on his many journeys to Salisbury this year, have always had before them the five principles as the firm basis for the soundings and explorations they have made, and have made it absolutely clear to Mr. Smith and his colleagues that they form the firm basis of any talks my right hon. Friend will have with them. That is the safeguard in regard to all the questions and queries that have been raised tonight.
That is why I say to hon. Members that it is just not good enough to say, "We admire the integrity of the Foreign Secretary, but we do not trust him negotiating with Mr. Smith."

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way on this point?

Mr. Godber: Well, a very short intervention.

Mr. Faulds: It is extremely good of the right hon. Gentleman to have at last given way. What he seems to fail to comprehend is that we have—I personally have—every faith in the Foreign Secretary, but what I do not have faith in is what hon. Members opposite expect, that there will be some extraordinary psychological transformation in Mr. Smith by which he will suddenly become a trustworthy character. If there were to be there would be a palace coup the day after.

Mr. Godber: What the hon. Gentleman says is that, having made a deal, Mr. Smith would rat on it straight away. If that is really the hon. Gentleman's belief, why did Mr. Smith not do precisely this in the negotiations with the Leader of the Opposition, when he could have got agreement and done away with sanctions straight away on exactly the same basis? The fact that Mr. Smith refused to do so prompts me to believe that he will stand by any agreement he makes. The point I was making was not that but that so many hon. Members opposite seem to think that it would be in the interests of the black African majority in Rhodesia if no agreement was reached. I do not believe that to be the case.
I said that I would not go into detail on the five principles, but I want to make an exception of the fifth principle because it has been mentioned by so many hon. Members, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East, made a particular point of it. I want to remind hon. Members precisely what that principle states. It says:
The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
That is the phrasing of the fifth principle. Until agreement has been reached, it is impossible to say precisely the form that this test of acceptability would take. But I can assure the House that we would agree only on the basis of arrangements that would ensure a full and impartial ascertainment of the views of all sections of the Rhodesian people. There would be no question of seeking the views of


Rhodesian Africans by, for instance, consultation with the tribal chiefs alone. Consultation will, of course, go much wider than that. The conditions which will be necessary must include adequate time and facilities for full explanation and discussion of the proposed terms for a settlement throughout the length and breadth of Rhodesia. It must also be clear that there will be provision for all Rhodesian Africans to express their views, and I hope that this shows the House that we attach great importance to the fifth principle.

Mr. Healey: To some extent I am reassured by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Will he answer the question asked by myself and many of my hon. Friends, namely, if he intends to carry out this type of consultation will he insist, as the Labour Government did, that all African political detainees who are not convicted of crimes of violence are released and will be free themselves to consult those Africans with whom they have contact and will have freedom of speech and propaganda during the period of consultation, because otherwise it is very difficult to feel confident that another body of people will be able to carry out an effective consultation?

Mr. Godber: I have chosen my words with care. I have made the point that we cannot be precise until the discussions between my right hon. Friend and Mr. Smith have been concluded, because that will be one of the aspects of the discussions. I have deliberately set out the position of broad principle. My right hon. Friend will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot go beyond the point I have made about the way and the extent to which consultation will take place.
So, if agreement should be reached, there will have to be a period of time during which full consultation takes place before we can report to Parliament that in the Government's view the five principles have been met. Thus there is no question of Parliament being faced with a fait accompli immediately upon my right hon. Friend's return. I give this assurance because I realise the anxiety of hon. Members about this matter. That anxiety is very widespread on both sides of the House. I think that throughout the whole of the House there

is a desire that there shall be the fullest consultation. That is why I have particularly picked on the fifth principle. But the others are of great importance and have, for many months now, been the subject of close discussion between Lord Goodman and his team, and will be the basis of the discussions which my right hon. Friend will be having. I mentioned particularly the fifth principle because unless we can show that the black African majority in Rhodesia have been adequately consulted it will not be satisfactory to opinion outside and inside the House.
The importance of the Order is that it is a continuation of the existing policy of the Government to maintain sanctions under existing conditions. The Order is put in its normal form, as it has been before, that is, for a period of 12 months, and if agreement is reached in my right hon. Friend's discussions in Salisbury, and if that agreement is later shown to have the backing of the majority of black African opinion in Rhodesia, as it required in the fifth principle, a new situation will have arisen which would pave the way to the ending of sanctions and hence the present Order.
I am grateful to those of my hon. Friend's—who feel deeply on this issue— who have said that because of the particular circumstances they would not wish to press this matter to a Division. It is of enormous help to my right hon. Friend if we have the support of the whole House at this time, and it is the best way in which we can give him the evidence of the strength of feeling in the House that wishes him well. So I hope very much that we can have full agreement in the House.
Before concluding, I want to touch upon one other matter raised in the debate by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening speech and by a number of other hon. Members who were seeking, as it were, to appear to widen the position about guarantees. This is where one has to recognise that even when the party opposite were negotiating they did not at every stage seek to have external guarantees. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in the House on 18th February, 1969, that it was not a question of an external guarantee. He referred to what the right
[MR. GOOBER.]
hon. Gentleman then the Minister without Portfolio had said in regard to safeguards that this had
… no external implications. It was purely internal."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 18th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 206.]

That was the position as set out by the then Prime Minister, and it is unreasonable to expect us at this stage for the reasons I have given to seek to widen the position.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: This is a most important matter because, if the Foreign Secretary is to go to Salisbury with the intention of not negotiating an external guarantee, it is a serious implication. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the "Tiger" and "Fearless" proposals there was an external guarantee? Under the "Fearless" proposals the Privy Council would have had the right to veto any discriminatory legislation. That was an external guarantee.

Mr. Godber: The quotation I gave was subsequent to both those occasions and the Leader of the Opposition changed the proposal for an external guarantee. That is clear both from the quotation I have given and from the report of what the right hon. Gentleman said at the time. Of course my right hon. Friend will wish to have the fullest assurances possible in regard to the future.

Mr. George Thomson: Can I put the matter in its proper perspective? The first point was that the Privy Council was applicable to Rhodesia as to other Commonwealth territories. Therefore it was not in that sense external to Rhodesia. The final proposition that I on behalf of the then British Government put to Mr. Smith was that any view of the Privy Council should be tested in Rhodesia by a reference to the various communities inside Rhodesia.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stating so clearly the position as it was then. I have been discussing the question of testing opinion in Rhodesia in regard to the fifth principle. Certainly the question of any

agreement which is reached will be fully subjected to the test of Rhodesian opinion. This is the most important aspect. [Interruption.] It may not be the same point, but it is a very important point. I cannot add anything on the question of external guarantees. I do not wish in any way to inhibit the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have on this or any other subject. It would be wrong for me to go beyond what I have said tonight in this regard.
I therefore ask the House unhesitatingly to give its full support to the Order. To show a united front on this issue is the best way in which we can give my right hon. Friend the complete backing in his difficult task which I think he is entitled to expect, and which many speeches tonight have indicated that he will receive. I should like to think that we shall have a unanimous view on this matter.
It would be stupid to minimise the task which will confront my right hon. Friend. It is clear that it is indeed questionable whether he will be able to succeed, but I am certain that it is right that he should make this attempt. When he reports back to the House on the outcome of his discussions, we shall know clearly what has happened. If he is able to succeed, this will be a great step forward for the black African majority in Rhodesia, who are the people both sides of the House should be thinking about at this present time.
I therefore commend the Order to the House and hope that we shall have unanimous agreement to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

TELEPHONE BILLS

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: We have been debating a great issue the result of which will affect many millions of Her Majesty's subjects in a far-off land, and the House of Commons has wished Godspeed to the Foreign Secretary on his voyage to Southern Rhodesia.
I now ask the House to turn to a very much smaller issue but one which affects one of Her Majesty's subjects very deeply indeed. This is a sorry tale of a general practitioner who lived in my constituency and who woke up one morning to discover that he owed the Post Office £4,000 for telephone calls which had been made during the previous six months on the instrument of which he was the subscriber.
It came about in the following way. In April, 1967, the wife of my constituent was in an advanced stage of alcoholism, from which disease—for it is a disease—she has now happily recovered. She was under the impression that an American was trying to persuade her to join him in the United States. Between April and November of that year, while her husband was attending to his patients, she would telephone this man in America often several times a day. The bill for calls made during the months of May, June and July was submitted by the London North-West Telephone Area in September and it amounted to £2,827. The account was intercepted and destroyed by the wife, and my constituent was first seized of his horrifying indebtedness in November, 1967, when the account had reached £3,925 and when his telephone was at last cut off for all outgoing calls.
There then began negotiations between my constituent's solicitors and the Post Office regarding the amount to be paid and the manner of payment, and it is only fair to say that the London Telecommunications Region, which has, of course, an obligation to recover the amount due, made genuine efforts to meet my constituent and to settle the matter even at a loss to itself, or rather to the public. Two offers of settlement were made by the Post Office. The first was to settle for £2,500, which was incidentally

no more than the sum which the Post Office had had to pay to the American Telephone Administration, of which £400 was to be paid at once and the balance by monthly instalments of £25. But this was more than my constituent could afford and he submitted copies of his P.60 for 1966-67 which set out his total income from all sources—I have the figures here—amounting to £1,300 net per annum.
The second offer from the Post Office was to settle for a total of £3,000 to be paid as to £1,000 down and the balance by quarterly instalments of £25. This the Post Office considered reasonable because my constituent had told them that a friend of his wife's had offered to put up £1,000 on condition that the Post Office would accept that sum in full and final settlement; but that the Post Office would not do, and accordingly my constituent had no £1,000 to put down.
So it came about that in July, 1970, as a result of a judgment summons, my constituent was ordered to pay off the debt at the rate of £5 a week, the Post Office to be at liberty to apply to vary the order if my constituent's circumstances should change. Since then, in May of this year, the Post Office has applied to vary the order, but the court has refused to increase the weekly payments, and there the matter rests, with the doctor's telephone still not available to him for outgoing calls.
I say at once that it may well be that my constituent is legally liable and that the Post Office has acted throughout in a responsible and sympathetic manner. But, somewhere, there is something wrong. The matter cannot be allowed to rest there.
When this case was first brought to my notice in July last year, I at once wrote to my right hon. Friend to ask that some settlement acceptable to my constituent should be agreed, and I added:
Whether steps can be taken to prevent this kind of thing happening to other people is another question, though one which, I am sure, you would like to consider".
My right hon. Friend quite properly replied that the matter was entirely one for the Post Office Corporation and that he could not intervene, but he had passed my letter to Lord Hall, then Chairman of the Post Office Board, who would
[MR. LONGDEN]
arrange for the question to be investigated.
Considerable correspondence ensued, but, in the end, I had to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend on 21st July last. I asked whether he would
give a general direction to the Post Office that it should warn private individual sub- scribers when outstanding telephone bills have passed a sum of £100 arising from overseas calls.
My right hon. Friend replied:
No, Sir. A general direction would not be appropriate ".
I asked in my supplementary question whether my right hon. Friend was aware that one of my constituents, whose telephone had been used without his knowledge for overseas calls over a period of only six months, had found himself liable for a bill of £4,000, and I added:
Considering that telephones are cut off right, left and centre for only a few pounds of debt, is it not disgraceful that this subscriber was allowed to amass that bill?".
My right hon. Friend replied that he was aware of the very tragic case to which I referred, and the Post Office, he was sure, would take note of what I had said. He added:
There is always the possibility for users who expect to run up large bills to be billed monthly rather than on the present arrangement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1437.]
I then said that, although my right hon. Friend's reply was not wholly unsatisfactory, I might seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is what I am now doing.
My constituent did not expect to run up large bills. In the last quarterly bill of which he had been aware, the one up to May, 1967, the trunk calls had amounted to £48. Also, so far as I am aware, the Post Office had not taken note of what I had to say. I am raising this matter tonight, therefore, because, whatever the legal rights and wrongs of this particular case may be, I think it disgraceful that such a debt should have been allowed to accumulate.
Here is a subscriber whose normal quarterly account is £50 or thereabouts yet who, within six months, was allowed to amass a debt of £4,000. Could this happen to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or to me? Yes, it could, if someone non compos mentis—which, as her doctor will

testify, was the condition of my constituent's wife at the time the debt was accumulated—gained access to our telephone when we were elsewhere.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Or even to someone who had a number of daughters.

Mr. Longden: As a bachelor, I would not know anything about that.
If it did happen to us, would such credit have been extended—a bill of £2,800 after one quarter, with nothing said, and allowed to increase by another £1,000 in the next few weeks? If that is normal, it is no wonder the Post Office is in the red. Would any private venture be so amenable?
My constituent may have been negligent, but surely it can fairly be claimed that there was contributory negligence? I asked the Managing Director of the Post Office what was its practice in dealing with outstanding accounts, and he replied:
We cannot undertake to keep a constant watch on the use made of every telephone line. To do so, assuming some formula could be devised to define an unusual level of use, would mean imposing an additional charge on all customers for a facility that would be quite meaningless for the vast majority.
Surely no formula is required to make the Post Office understand when someone whose normal quarterly bill is £50 suddenly has one that becomes £2,000 odd?
The Managing Director continued:
Legally, each subscriber is responsible for the use made of his telephone and this is the only practicable basis on which we can operate the service.
That, of course, we understand. He went on:
 On your last point, if a subscriber does not pay his bill within approximately five weeks, a notice is sent asking for payment within seven days, and saying that, if it is not paid, service will be withdrawn and legal proceedings to recover the debt will follow. When the present case began in 1967 the procedure was different and a reminder was then sent after four weeks, followed by a letter a week later giving warning of withdrawal of service and subsequent legal proceedings.
I cannot see why that period should have been extended to five weeks.
I cannot be satisfied with that reply, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be satisfied with it either. A new and more effective procedure must be devised. I am grateful to my right


hon. Friend for being present tonight. I regret that I should have made it necessary for him to be here. I hope that he will be able to tell me what can be done to settle the case and to ensure that no similar case can happen in future.

11.42 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): I compliment by hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on the tenacity of purpose and the concern for his constituent's troubles that he has demonstrated not only tonight but in the course of a long correspondence with the Post Office. I should first like to deal with that case before moving on to some of the wider aspects on which my hon. Friend has touched.
The matter lies squarely within the responsibility of the Post Office, but I have had a full report from the Post Office about it. I should not wish, any more than my hon. Friend, to identify the subscriber about whom he has been talking. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituent in the situation in which he finds himself. But it would be virtually impossible for the Post Office to distinguish between the merits of this case and those of other cases so as to assess the degree of relief that should be given on compassionate grounds. We require of the Post Office that it should behave as a commercial concern, the same requirement that we impose on other nationalised industries. It would be absolutely impossible to ask of the Post Office or any other nationalised industry that it should distinguish between one case and another upon compassionate grounds.
My hon. Friend has very fairly described the circumstances of the case and the steps he and the Post Office have taken. There is only one very small correction I would make of his account of the affair, and that is that I believe that a full telephone service was restored to his constituent in September, 1970.
The Post Office, I think, went as far as it felt it could go to deal with the situation. At no time did it cut off the telephone service, because it recognised that it was essential to my hon. Friend's constituent as a doctor, and although outstanding charges incurred in 1967 amounted to almost £4,000 it offered to

accept £2,500 in full settlement. That lesser sum was, as my hon. Friend said, very little more than the Post Office itself had to pay out to the American Telecommunications Administration. Unfortunately, this offer was rejected and the Post Office was obliged to sue in the High Court. There, judgment was given for it, plus costs. Subsequent negotiations between the two parties on arrangements for repayment of the debt broke down, and the Post Office applied to the county court for an order for repayment. That was sei by that court at £5 a week, although if can be varied on application to the court.
Even so, the Post Office would be prepared to review the situation sympathetically when it has been able to recover a sum equivalent to that which it has paid to the American administration. I do not have powers in this matter, but I have no doubt that the Post Office will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.
This, I think, is a very unusual case. While I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituent in his personal troubles, I know that it will be recognised that the Post Office, which has a duty to telephone users everywhere, has dealt with the individual patiently, fairly and sympathetically. The accuracy of the bill is not in question. But my hon. Friend has raised several other points and I should like to deal with some more general aspects.
In this case, the calls were obtained through an operator, but increasing automation of the telephone service in recent years has led to an extension of subscriber dialling, not only on inland trunk calls but also on international calls. With a fully automatic system, these are, of course, indistinguishable.
If a call is made through an operator, the subscriber can find out immediately the cost of a particular call and can also identify an operator-assisted call on his bill in due course, so that he can dispute the matter if he thinks that he has been overcharged. But that advantage is small compared with the greater number of calls which a fully automatic system can carry, because there are inevitably delays in a manual or semi-automatic system.
More importantly, a subscriber-dialled call is considerably cheaper than an operator-assisted call. The modern fully automatic telephone service sells larger or
[MR. CHATAWAY.]
smaller units of time according to a tariff based on whether those units are concerned with local or other calls, and whether calls are made during the busy or off-peak hours.
In those circumstances, to ask the Post Office to set all sorts of restraints on an increasingly sophisticated and flexible service would be ill-advised and incompatible with the demands which are made by a modern society for the fullest use of communications services.
It is, of course, possible for users who expect to run up heavy bills to be billed monthly. The Post Office encourages customers to accept monthly call bills if the usage of the telephone is sufficient to justify the additional cost. That arrangement can reduce the impact of what would otherwise be a heavy quarterly bill and enables subscribers to keep a closer check.
One kindred problem which has been aired recently in the Press is the case in which an operator is given an incorrect telephone number, which is subsequently charged for a trunk call that it has not made. Since that is an operator-assisted call, it will appear on the bill of the subscriber whose number has been incorrectly given. He should then be able to satisfy the Post Office, without too much difficulty, that the call should not be charged to him. There are checks which the Post Office applies to prevent this sort of abuse, and it does not hesitate to prosecute those who perpetrate this kind of fraud.
My hon. Friend suggested that subscribers should be warned by the Post Office when their outstanding bill has passed a certain sum. He suggested at Question Time that this might be set at £100. The Post Office does not believe that a warning system like that would be feasible. Notification would need to be coupled with some restriction of service applied by some "cut-out" procedure. The relative needs of subscribers would have to be taken into account. There would be nothing unusual in a bill of £4,000 being run up in a quarter by a number of businesses, so what would be required by the Post Office in any such system as my hon. Friend suggested would be a different cut-out level for different subscribers. This would result in a variety of scales of usage or a variety

of limits on billing. With present technology, such a scheme would be operationally difficult to achieve and could be done only at heavy additional cost, which would have ultimately to be borne by users.
My hon. Friend suggested that the kind of experience he described must influence the Post Office a good deal, but my advice is that to institute any such universal warning procedure of the kind he has been describing would be infinitely more costly.
A subscriber, if he so chooses, can control the use of a telephone in his house to fairly extreme limits. For example, he could have a portable telephone which he could unplug from its socket. I would recommend this particular technique to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) if he has troubles with his daughter in this respect. He could even lock up the telephone so that it could not be used during his absence, or he could have a coin box in his house. Where there is a special problem over curtailing access, I am sure the Post Office would be very happy to discuss it with a subscriber in the hope of finding a solution.
To refer briefly to one other matter closely related to the issue raised by my hon. Friend tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and other have expressed anxiety as to the accuracy of meters used in recording telephone use. Doubts on this score are more often than not prompted by the arrival of a bill for a larger sum than expected; and there are many reasons for this unconnected with the accuracy of the meters. As telephone users, we tend to forget the occasion when we made an unusually long call over the trunk lines outside the period when the cheaper off-peak charges are operative and the sizeable addition to our bill which this can give rise to comes as something of a shock.
Although telephone bills are queried from time to time, the Post Office tells me that these queries affect only a very small percentage of the several million bills issued in the course of a year; and very few of these queries relate to the metering of calls. All queries are investigated, and it is very rare that on investigation the accuracy of the meters is found to be questionable.
One reason the meter may be suspected by telephone users is that, unlike their gas and electricity meters, it is not in their own home and they cannot keep their eyes on it. The meter is in fact housed at the telephone exchange for the very good reason that its operation is closely governed by exchange equipment which regulates the pulses fed to the meter according to the appropriate tariff for the distance over which the call is made and the time of day. All of the charging and recording apparatus is tested thoroughly and regularly, some of the checks being a daily routine.
It is extremely rare for any of the 6 million meters of subscribers able to make STD calls to be found faulty, and I understand that when faults do occur the meter is more prone to record less than it should; in other words, it tends to favour the subscriber. Nevertheless, I recognise that there is anxiety on the part of some of the Post Office's 9 million telephone subscribers, and I am discussing this problem with the Post Office.
I fear I am not this evening able to give my hon. Friend the assurances he wants. I am afraid I cannot, in the particular case he has raised, point to a solution. We cannot expect the Post Office to arbitrate in cases of hardship of this kind.

Mr. Longden: But no private firm would allow a country practitioner to amass a bill of £4,000 in six months. Why cannot the nationalised industry use the same system?

Mr. Chataway: For the Post Office to institute the kind of checking procedure which my hon. Friend envisages, it would be an extremely costly affair. A commercial concern institutes such controls as it thinks necessary to protect it against bad debts. The Post Office is following

a similar commercial practice. It believes that to institute a cut-off procedure with varying levels of cut-off for telephone subscribers would involve it in enormous additional cost and would not be a commercial operation. If my hon. Friend will try to envisage what would be involved in the Post Office saying that it would have a cut off procedure at several different figures, then instituting a system enabling it to check when, during a given quarter, the different levels were exceeded, and setting up a procedure whereby the subscribers concerned were notified, he will see that substantial costs would be involved.
If the very rare case of hardship to which my hon. Friend has alluded were to be avoided, the Post Office would not need merely a system which set a check for those who had reason to suspect that their telephone bills might he large. It would need a universal system to protect those who had no idea that they were running up large bills.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: It seems that this sort of problem is tailor-made for a computer, and it could, following a request from the subscriber, provide him with, say, a weekly bill.

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what has been said in this debate. It may be that what is not possible at the present stage of technology might be possible in the future.
I hope that this debate has done some good in highlighting a number of general problems. I know that the Post Office takes them very seriously, both in its customers' interest and for its own better management and customer relations.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock.